[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Fix DEVEL=1 build

From: Mark H Weaver
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix DEVEL=1 build
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:16:14 -0400


bill-auger <> writes:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:46:45 -0400 Mark wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but can you explain why they must
>> be disjuncts, and what this has to do with 'set -x'?
> sry again - having a bad hair day - i was thinking of `set -e`

Okay.  Even if we substitute 'set -e' for 'set -x' in your comments, I
still don't understand why we must use disjuncts instead of conjuncts.

> i noticed that the guard i was replacing was written as a disjunct; and just
> assumed it was running under `set -e`

I think it *is* running under 'set -e'.  IIUC, that mode is
unconditionally set in the line "set -euo pipefail" near the top of

> - and yes, that was also my bad - i wrote that original LOC too -

Why was it "your bad"?

> it has become habitual to always ensure that commands
> which exit non-zero always indicate some unexpected failure

Can you elaborate on this?  I'm not sure I understand what you're
getting at here.

Also, it would be preferable for any proposed patches along these lines
to be based on the 'wip-deterministic' branch, which I intend to merge
into 'master' soon, and which conflict somewhat with your proposed


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]