Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Now I've tried harder, and this does the job:
>
> Thanks a lot for getting to this so quickly! I can now single-step through
> the test in the documented way.
>
> One line in the patch looks strange: In the test whether the current shell
> is OK you test for an exit code 9; then in the loop you test for exit code 2.
> In view of your comment about Solaris /bin/sh and exit code 2, I think you
> meant the following:
>
> --- tests/init.sh.orig Sun May 16 21:50:43 2010
> +++ tests/init.sh Sun May 16 21:50:14 2010
> @@ -96,7 +96,8 @@
> test "$re_shell_" = no_shell && continue
> test "$re_shell_" = fail && skip_ failed to find an adequate shell
> "$re_shell_" -c "$gl_shell_test_script_" 2>/dev/null
> - if test $? = 2; then
> + if test $? = 9; then
> + # Found a better shell than the current one.
> exec "$re_shell_" "$0" --no-reexec "$@"
> echo "$ME_: exec failed" 1>&2
> exit 127
Yes, definitely.
Thank you.
Here's what I've done:
>From 1a183f8268eb1aae67bbc6bf65d98c703ac7983b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering <meyer...@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 22:30:00 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] init.sh: fix an error in the previous change; add more comments
* tests/init.sh: Compare exit code in loop against 9, not 2.
Patch by Bruno Haible.
Make the two tests more similar by adding an empty "then" clause.
Add comments.
---
ChangeLog | 6 ++++++
tests/init.sh | 8 ++++++--
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index ea50e39..e7fbe0b 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
2010-05-16 Jim Meyering <meyer...@redhat.com>
+ init.sh: fix an error in the previous change; add more comments
+ * tests/init.sh: Compare exit code in loop against 9, not 2.
+ Patch by Bruno Haible.
+ Make the two tests more similar by adding an empty "then" clause.
+ Add comments.
+
init.sh: avoid unnecessary shell re-exec
* tests/init.sh: Improve the re-exec-required check to first test the
current shell. If it passes the test, do not search for a shell that
diff --git a/tests/init.sh b/tests/init.sh
index 2ad385f..e23aa54 100644
--- a/tests/init.sh
+++ b/tests/init.sh
@@ -90,13 +90,17 @@ else
# It does not evaluate any of the code after the "unexpected" `('. Thus,
# we must run it in a subshell.
( eval "$gl_shell_test_script_" ) > /dev/null 2>&1
- if test $? != 9; then
+ if test $? = 9; then
+ : # The current shell is adequate. No re-exec required.
+ else
+ # Search for a shell that meets our requirements.
for re_shell_ in "${CONFIG_SHELL:-no_shell}" /bin/sh bash dash zsh pdksh
fail
do
test "$re_shell_" = no_shell && continue
test "$re_shell_" = fail && skip_ failed to find an adequate shell
"$re_shell_" -c "$gl_shell_test_script_" 2>/dev/null
- if test $? = 2; then
+ if test $? = 9; then
+ # Found an acceptable shell.
exec "$re_shell_" "$0" --no-reexec "$@"
echo "$ME_: exec failed" 1>&2
exit 127
--
1.7.1.250.g7d1e8
