On Friday 11 May 2012 13:32:46 Zac Medico wrote:
> On 05/11/2012 09:39 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > +multijob_finish() {
> > + local ret=0
> > + while [[ ${mj_num_jobs} -gt 0 ]] ; do
> > + multijob_finish_one
> > + : $(( ret += $? ))
> > + done
> > + # Let bash clean up its internal child tracking state.
> > + wait
> > + return ${ret}
> > +}
>
> Wouldn't it be better to use $(( ret |= $? )) there, in order to avoid a
> possible integer overflow? Other than that, the patch looks good to me.i meant to use |= like the other places ... not that i'm too worried about overflow here as the exit value is clamped to [0..255], so it'd take millions of failing processes to cause a problem :). -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
