Re: [PATCH] run-command: simplify wait_or_whine

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno that's
important.

[...]

-		/*
-		 * This return value is chosen so that code & 0xff
-		 * mimics the exit code that a POSIX shell would report for
-		 * a program that died from this signal.
-		 */
-		code += 128;

Have you checked the callers?  There are lots of callers of
finish_command(), which returns the value from wait_or_whine()
unmodified.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Thomas Rast [off-list ref] wrote:

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno that's
important.

[...]

quoted

-             /*
-              * This return value is chosen so that code & 0xff
-              * mimics the exit code that a POSIX shell would report for
-              * a program that died from this signal.
-              */
-             code += 128;

Have you checked the callers?  There are lots of callers of
finish_command(), which returns the value from wait_or_whine()
unmodified.

Yes I did. Most of them simply check that the number is not zero.

However, that was at the time I wrote the patch, and it seems there's
now one instance where the code is checked.

-- 
Felipe Contreras