[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fewer forks during shell detection
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: fewer forks during shell detection |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:35:56 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hi Eric,
somewhat older mail:
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:53:54AM CET:
>
> I'm applying the following patch, which reduces the number of forks needed
> during the better shell search portion of M4sh scripts.
>
> Meanwhile, are there any shells where a message escapes when attempting to
> redirect stderr of a program that can't be executed? More to the point,
> is this silent:
>
> echo 'echo hi' > foo
> chmod a-x foo
> echo '...' | ./foo 2>/dev/null
>
> or must we use (./foo) in order to squelch messages from some shell in the
> case where ./foo is not executable or not a valid binary image? I'm
> asking because _AS_RUN is currently using the subshell, after already
> verifying that 'test -f shell' passes (but doesn't do 'test -x shell'),
> and I'd like to remove the subshell if it is safe.
I haven't found a shell that needs this subshell, but this:
$ echo '...' | ./foo 2>/dev/null
causes this output from some bash versions:
| bash: echo: write error: Broken pipe
Of course that output isn't avoided by putting ./foo in a subshell,
and I think it doesn't affect the changed code, either, but I thought
I'd mention it.
Cheers,
Ralf
- Re: fewer forks during shell detection,
Ralf Wildenhues <=