This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: (toplevel b-i-b patch) remove more cruft, take two
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dj at redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:44:15 -0500
- Subject: Re: (toplevel b-i-b patch) remove more cruft, take two
- References: <20021124203750.GA423@doctormoo>
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 03:37:50PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Aaargh. And I found the problem.
>
> Keep the brackets. Version one of my patch is correct, version two is
> wrong.
>
> rm -f foo *can* return a non-zero exit status when foo is missing, and
> if it does we want to continue.
Where? The definition is:
Do not prompt for confirmation. Do not write diagnostic messages or
modify the exit status in the case of nonexistent operands. Any
previous occurrences of the -i option shall be ignored.
And if that's what you want to handle, I don't think the old or new
code would do what you're saying. And you'd just say "rm -f foo ||
true"...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer