View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000299 | 1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 | Shell and Utilities | public | 2010-07-29 17:35 | 2013-04-16 13:06 |
| Reporter | calestyo | Assigned To | ajosey | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | Editorial | Type | Clarification Requested |
| Status | Closed | Resolution | Accepted As Marked | ||
| Name | Christoph Anton Mitterer | ||||
| Organization | Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München | ||||
| User Reference | |||||
| Section | 14. | ||||
| Page Number | ? | ||||
| Line Number | ? | ||||
| Interp Status | --- | ||||
| Final Accepted Text | 0000299:0000538 | ||||
| Summary | 0000299: what's the exit status when a shell aborts on using the dot built in when the argument is not readable | ||||
| Description | Hi. Perhaps this is (also) a non-issue and I just haven't found the relevant section: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#dot says: >If no readable file is found, a non-interactive shell shall abort So I guess if I have a line: . /tmp/otherScript in a shell script and /tmp/otherScript does not exist or is not readable the shell is intended to immediately abort, right? What is the exit status of the "(outer) shell script" then? Perhaps that should also be added to the "Exit Status" section of "dot". | ||||
| Desired Action | Clarify the exit status in case the file searched by dot does not exist or is not readable. | ||||
| Tags | tc1-2008 | ||||
|
|
At page 3175 line 105724 section sh change 1-125 A non-interactive shell detected a syntax, redirection, or variable assignment error. to 1-125 A non-interactive shell detected an error other than command_file not found, including but not limited to syntax, redirection, or variable assignment errors. |
|
|
I guess that means: If the script is not readable or does not exist (see my example above), the outer shell exits with [1-125] (immediately), right? However: Is the documentation of "sh" also normative for any shell implementing the "Shell Command Language" or not? If so, than everything would be fine, if not than (IMHO) the exit status would have to be also defined in “2. Shell Command Language”, e.g. the section “2.8.1 Consequences of Shell Errors”. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-07-29 17:35 | calestyo | New Issue | |
| 2010-07-29 17:35 | calestyo | Status | New => Under Review |
| 2010-07-29 17:35 | calestyo | Assigned To | => ajosey |
| 2010-07-29 17:35 | calestyo | Name | => Christoph Anton Mitterer |
| 2010-07-29 17:35 | calestyo | Organization | => Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München |
| 2010-07-29 17:35 | calestyo | Section | => 14. |
| 2010-07-29 17:35 | calestyo | Page Number | => ? |
| 2010-07-29 17:35 | calestyo | Line Number | => ? |
| 2010-09-02 16:19 | geoffclare | Note Added: 0000538 | |
| 2010-09-02 16:20 | geoffclare | Note Edited: 0000538 | |
| 2010-09-02 16:24 | geoffclare | Interp Status | => --- |
| 2010-09-02 16:24 | geoffclare | Final Accepted Text | => 0000299:0000538 |
| 2010-09-02 16:24 | geoffclare | Status | Under Review => Resolved |
| 2010-09-02 16:24 | geoffclare | Resolution | Open => Accepted As Marked |
| 2010-09-02 16:28 | geoffclare | Tag Attached: tc1-2008 | |
| 2010-09-03 17:22 | calestyo | Note Added: 0000541 | |
| 2013-04-16 13:06 | ajosey | Status | Resolved => Closed |
