Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:24:04AM +0200, Daniel Lungu wrote: >> -wrong-nil(!)-exit-status- >> % nerr-cl.exe; echo $? >> 0 >> >> $? cannot distinguish exit(0) from exit(-2) ... this is >> logical anarchy! > >:) Ah, but those aren't just two different values passed to exit, they are >:)

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

> -wrong-nil(!)-exit-status- > % nerr-cl.exe; echo $? > 0 > > $? cannot distinguish exit(0) from exit(-2) ... this is > logical anarchy! :) Ah, but those aren't just two different values passed to exit, they are :) in fact two entirely different versions of the exit function: gcc links

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:23:41AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:25:09AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >> >On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > >> >> On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote: >> >> > Feel like

RE: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Daniel Lungu > Sent: 08 July 2004 18:14 > Indeed, but same arithmetic should apply when exit status > comes from a "cl > compiled .exe". It is not the case when compiling nerr.c with cl: > > -wrong-nil(!)-exit-status- > % ner

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

:) "The value of status may be 0, EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, [CX] or any :) other value" :) but what you shouldn't do is expect the exit status in the shell to be :) anything other than the least-significant byte of the value you passed: :) "though only the least significant 8 bits (that is, sta

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:25:09AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > >> On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote: > >> > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status > >> > from a cl co

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:25:09AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote: >> > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl >> > compiled .exe >> >> The answer is "don't do that". Use posit

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote: > > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl > > compiled .exe > > The answer is "don't do that". Use positive values in the range from > 0 to 255. See > http://www.opengroup.org/o

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

On Jul 8 14:00, Daniel Lungu wrote: > > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl > > compiled .exe > > :) The answer is "don't do that". Use positive values in the range from > :) 0 to 255. See > :) http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exit.ht

RE: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen > Sent: 08 July 2004 11:09 > On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote: > > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit > status from a cl > > compiled .exe > > The answer is "don't do that". Use positive val

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

> Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl > compiled .exe :) The answer is "don't do that". Use positive values in the range from :) 0 to 255. See :) http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exit.html I wouldn't do that. The problem is other did

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

On Jul 8 11:49, Daniel Lungu wrote: > Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl > compiled .exe The answer is "don't do that". Use positive values in the range from 0 to 255. See http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exit.html Corinna -- Cori