Eric Blake wrote:
And I don't know why Matthew's posts seem to be dropped from bug-gnulib, but
show up on m4-discuss:
Hmm, that's a good question. They seem to be getting through to list
subscribers (or at least gmane's subscription), as I can see them (I'm
using gmane's NNTP gateway). Howeve
Eric Blake wrote:
> Is this patch acceptable?
Yes. If somebody will be hurt by it (for example because the wait status
macros like WCOREDUMP give a different result for exit code 1 than for
exit code -1), it will be Matthew. Other platforms with EXIT_FAILURE = -1,
such as Sinclair QL, are not amon
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this patch acceptable? Most platforms already use 1 for EXIT_FAILURE. It
> fixes what are otherwise false negatives in the M4 testsuite. It also makes
> it
> easier to use GNU applications with xargs (since POSIX requires xargs to
> behave
> different
Is this patch acceptable? Most platforms already use 1 for EXIT_FAILURE. It
fixes what are otherwise false negatives in the M4 testsuite. It also makes it
easier to use GNU applications with xargs (since POSIX requires xargs to behave
differently when apps exit with 255 as compared with any o
