Is that more advantageous? On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:46 AM, dualbus <dual...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 01:45:42AM +0530, Pranav Deshpande wrote: > [...] > > My solution is to change *line 294* of builtins/read.def. > > > > Change > > if (code == 0 || *intval < 0* || intval != (int)intval) > > > > to > > > > if (code == 0 || i*ntval <= 0* || intval != (int)intval) > [...] > > > Is this solution ok? > > Yes. That works. > > > Chet went with the other option though: > > dualbus@debian:~/src/gnu/bash-build$ ./bash -c 'read -n0; echo $?; > declare -p REPLY' > 0 > declare -- REPLY="" > > You can see the change by navigating the `devel' branch of the git > repository > in Savannah (commit 1110e30870a8782425067a060d89cc411b014418): > > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/commit/?h=devel&id= > 1110e30870a8782425067a060d89cc411b014418 > > Although there's a problem with the solution: > > dualbus@debian:~$ for sh in bash ~/src/gnu/bash-build/bash ksh93 mksh; > do $sh -c ': | read -n 0; echo $?'; done > 1 > 0 > 1 > 1 > > Since the read(2) system call doesn't take place, `read -n 0' doesn't > detect > the broken pipe. IMO, it should. > > -- > Eduardo Bustamante > https://dualbus.me/ >
