Il mar 14 set 2021, 22:01 Denys Vlasenko <vda.li...@googlemail.com> ha
scritto:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 3:45 PM Roberto A. Foglietta
> <roberto.foglie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Il giorno mar 14 set 2021 alle ore 12:24 Denys Vlasenko
> > <vda.li...@googlemail.com> ha scritto:
> > > > > I am going to replace every raise_exception(EXEXIT) with
> exitshell()
> > > > > and to remove the EXEXIT altogether.
> > >
> > > There is only one: in exitcmd(), the handler of "exit" builtin.
> >
> > I think that also here raise_exception(EXEND); should need to be
> > replaced with exitshell() when FUNCNAME patch will be added
> >
> > if (eflag)
> > goto exexit;
> > }
> > if (flags & EV_EXIT) {
> > exexit:
> > raise_exception(EXEND); //<--- exitshell() when FUNCNAME
> > }
>
> Why?
>
>
> > > > It seems to me that EXEXIT does
> > > > > not add any value but complicates things. What's your opinion on
> that?
> > > > > Do you see any possible regression?
> > >
> > > Could work. Can you make this change through dash?
> > > I do not want to diverge here.
> >
> > I can give you the patch for the busybox and then when you apply it
> > you (or me, but better you) can initiate a synchronisation with dash
> > under multiple issues.
>
> The problem with this order is that dash people may disagree and refuse
> the change.
> If we already apply changes to bbox, what then?
>
The problem is to present ourself without something coherent to their
developing team.
FUNCNAME Is important and at least we should include it. While for the
EXEXIT / EXEND we can do different things: cherry-picking or create a
branch for synchronisation.
I opt in for creating a branch for synchronisation and then merge with the
master in case synchronisation will be successful.
>
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
