Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 01:04:09AM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: ... >> For the tests, I am inclined to provide the exit >> code '77' (= SKIP), rather than '1' (= FAIL): If a test is terminated >> by Ctrl-C, it has neither passed nor failed. > > Yes, it makes sense. Actually,

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

Hello Dmitry, * Dmitry V. Levin wrote on Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 08:12:01PM CET: > There is a comment about shell signal handlers in gnulib-tool saying that > "The value of $? is 128 + signal number and is set before the > trap-registered command is run". Unfortunately, this comment is wrong, > and

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > This would break the "If removal fails" statement. > Let's pass exit code to this function as an argument: > > remove_tmp_() > { > __st=$1 > [...] > trap 'remove_tmp_ $?' 0 Yes, you're right. Here's an updated proposed patch: 2010-01-30 Bruno Haible

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 01:51:59AM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: > Additionally, another proposed change prompted by Dmitry's patch. > > The Autoconf manual > > says: > "the state of ‘$?’ is not reliable when entering a sh

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > -trap 'rm -fr $tmpfiles' 1 2 3 15 > > +trap 'rm -fr $tmpfiles; exit 77' 1 2 3 15 > > According to "Limitations of Builtins" chapter in the autoconf > manual, plain "exit 77" is not portable; it has to be written > as "(exit 77); exit 77". Plain "exit 77" is not portable

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 01:41:33AM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: [...] > TMP_BASE=update-copyright.test > -trap 'rm -f $TMP_BASE*' 0 1 2 3 15 > +trap 'status=$?; rm -f $TMP_BASE*; exit $status' 0 > +trap 'rm -f $TMP_BASE*; (exit 77); exit 77' 1 2 3 15 The signal trap is a bit redundant, it could be

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

Additionally, another proposed change prompted by Dmitry's patch. The Autoconf manual says: "the state of ‘$?’ is not reliable when entering a shell function. This has the effect that using a function as the first co

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

Hi Jim, > I'll propose patches for gnulib-tool and most of the tests, and leave > bootstrap, tests/test-vc-list-files*.sh, tests/test-update-copyright.sh > to Jim. Here's a proposed patch for some of these: 2010-01-30 Bruno Haible Don't use $? in a trap handler for a signal.

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 01:22:34AM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: > Here is part 2 of the proposed fixes. [...] > -trap 'rm -fr $tmpfiles' 1 2 3 15 > +trap 'rm -fr $tmpfiles; exit 77' 1 2 3 15 According to "Limitations of Builtins" chapter in the autoconf manual, plain "exit 77" is not portable; it ha

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 01:04:09AM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: [...] > > Proposed patch is attached. > > Sorry, but I don't understand why you chose 143 as exit code, making it look > like the process died from SIGTERM when in fact in may have been SIGINT. > There seem to be two conventions for the

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

Here is part 2 of the proposed fixes. 2010-01-30 Bruno Haible Don't continue executing a test after catching a fatal signal. * tests/test-atexit.sh (trap 1-15): After removing the temporary files, exit with code 77. * tests/test-binary-io.sh (trap 1-15): Likewi

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

Here's part 1 of the fixes, as I would like to see it. Opinions? 2010-01-30 Bruno Haible Don't use $? in a trap handler for a signal. * gnulib-tool (trap 1-15): Exit with exit status 1. * MODULES.html.sh (trap 1-15): Likewise. Reported by Dmitry V. Levin . ---

Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

Hi Dmitry, The 'trap' issue is complicated enough that, before answering your mail, I'd like to point out my understanding of the issue. Sources: - POSIX - Autoconf manual

[PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

Hi, There is a comment about shell signal handlers in gnulib-tool saying that "The value of $? is 128 + signal number and is set before the trap-registered command is run". Unfortunately, this comment is wrong, and it seems to be a widespread misunderstanding. The GNU Autoconf manual says that "