From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 8 06:43:01 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184F616A4CE; Sat, 8 May 2004 06:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BDE43D1D; Sat, 8 May 2004 06:42:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from novo@cs.tu-berlin.de) Received: from 130-149-145-120.dialup.cs.tu-berlin.de (130-149-145-120.dialup.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.145.120]) by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28557; Sat, 8 May 2004 15:42:49 +0200 (MEST) Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 15:43:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt X-X-Sender: novo@130-149-145-120.dialup.cs.tu-berlin.de To: "Mark D. Baushke" In-Reply-To: <11525.1083948957@juniper.net> Message-ID: <20040508153845.U641@130-149-145-63.dialup.cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <11525.1083948957@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG cc: "Simon J. Gerraty" cc: Paul Eggert Subject: Re: standards/66357: make POSIX conformance problem ('sh -e' & '+' command-line flag) X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: harti@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 13:43:01 -0000 On Fri, 7 May 2004, Mark D. Baushke wrote: > > >Number: 66357 > >Category: standards > >Synopsis: make POSIX conformance problem ('sh -e' & '+' command-line) > >Confidential: no > >Severity: non-critical > >Priority: low > >Responsible: freebsd-standards > >State: open > >Quarter: > >Keywords: > >Date-Required: > >Class: sw-bug > >Submitter-Id: current-users > >Arrival-Date: Fri May 07 10:00:38 PDT 2004 > >Closed-Date: > >Last-Modified: > >Originator: Mark Baushke > >Release: FreeBSD 5.2-RELEASE i386 > >Organization: > Juniper Networks, Inc. > >Environment: > System: FreeBSD rat52.juniper.net 5.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 5.2-RELEASE #0: Sun Jan 11 04:21:45 GMT 2004 root@wv1u.btc.adaptec.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 > > >Description: > Background: > > POSIX 1003.2-1997 states that each makefile command line is processed > as if given to system(3) (see URL > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/make.html) > > POSIX 1003.1-2004 (as well as older versions of the standard) states > that system() does not use the "sh -e" command to exit immediately if > any untested command fails in non-interactive mode. (see URL > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/system.html) > > The FreeBSD /usr/bin/make program generates an error and does not > support the '+' command line flag properly. > (tested on FreeBSD 2.2.8-RELEASE, 3.3-RELEASE, 4.2-RELEASE, > 4.10-PRERELEASE and 5.2-RELEASE versions) > > My guess is that the .POSIX: directive in the test case would not have > much impact as the sys.mk file seems to be read before the first > Makefile is opened, but I have added that rule to underline that this > change is really only required in order to be POSIX compliant. > > Should you wish to retain your existing behavior, that would be fine as > long as the behavior is modified as expected when the .POSIX: directive > is given. > > I have consulted with Simon J. Gerraty who commits changes to the NetBSD > version of make as well as providing portable versions of bmake for > other platforms (see URL http://www.crufty.net/help/sjg/bmake.html). He > says he has committed a patch to the NetBSD -current version of the make > program. > > Part of the e-mail exchange focused on this problem is found here: > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-toolchain/2004/05/05/0008.html > > After my .signature are the log message and URLs for the changes made to > the NetBSD. > > >How-To-Repeat: > How to reproduce the problem: > > The following Makefile > > --------------- start Makefile --------------- > .POSIX: > all: x plus sub err > x: > @echo "Hello,"; false; echo "World" > plus: > @echo a command > +@echo "a command prefixed by '+' executes even with -n" > @echo another command > subs: > @echo make -n > @${.MAKE} -f ${MAKEFILE} -n plus > @echo make -n -j1 > @${.MAKE} -f ${MAKEFILE} -n -j1 plus > > err: > @(echo Now we expect an error...; exit 1) > @echo "Oops! you shouldn't see this!" > > --------------- end Makefile --------------- > > The > make x > > command should therefore generate two lines: > > Hello, > World > > with no error on a 'make' command that is POSIX-compliant. > > The > make -n plus > > command should print > > echo a command > echo "a command prefixed by '+' executes even with -n" > a command prefixed by '+' executes even with -n > echo another command > > to show that it is not executing the first and last echo command, but > is executing the middle one. > > The > make err > > command should print > > Now we expect an error... > > and exit with an error code 1. > > Running all of the tests may require adding a few command-line > arguments if the paricular version of make does not support setting > the .MAKE or MAKEFILE macros such as this: > > make .MAKE=/usr/bin/make MAKEFILE=Makefile > > However, as those macros are not required by the POSIX standard, you > don't need to worry if they are not being set by default. > > --------------- begin test results for FreeBSD 5.2-RELEASE --------------- > % /usr/bin/make > Hello, > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /tmp/mdb.foo. > % /usr/bin/make plus > % /usr/bin/make plus > a command > +@echo "a command prefixed by '+' executes even with -n" > +@echo:No such file or directory > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /tmp/mdb.foo. > % /usr/bin/make -n plus > echo a command > +@echo "a command prefixed by '+' executes even with -n" > echo another command > % /usr/bin/make -n .MAKE=/usr/bin/make subs > echo make -n > /usr/bin/make -f Makefile -n plus > echo make -n -j1 > /usr/bin/make -f Makefile -n -j1 plus > % /usr/bin/make .MAKE=/usr/bin/make -n subs > echo make -n > /usr/bin/make -f Makefile -n plus > echo make -n -j1 > /usr/bin/make -f Makefile -n -j1 plus > % /usr/bin/make err > Now we expect an error... > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /tmp/mdb.foo. > % /usr/bin/make -n err > (echo Now we expect an error...; exit 1) > echo "Oops! you shouldn't see this!" > % pwd > /tmp/mdb.foo > % > --------------- end test reults for FreeBSD 5.2-RELEASE --------------- > > >Fix: > Committed to the NetBSD cvs repository on Fri May 7 08:12:15 2004 UTC by sjg > > Log message: > > Remove use of sh -e when running in compat mode. > Its not posix compliant and serves very little purpose. > With this change compat and jobs modes are consistent wrt how > they treat each line of a script. > > Add support for the '+' command line prefix as required by posix. > Lines prefixed with '+' are executed even when -n is given. > [Actually posix says they should also be done for -q and -t] > > PR: > Reviewed by: jmc > > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/make/compat.c.diff?r1=1.53&r2=1.54 > > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/make/nonints.h.diff?r1=1.31&r2=1.32 > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/make/job.c.diff?r1=1.84&r2=1.85 > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/make/unit-tests/Makefile.diff?r1=1.12&r2=1.13 > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/make/unit-tests/test.exp.diff?r1=1.11&r2=1.12 > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/make/unit-tests/posix > >Release-Note: > >Audit-Trail: > >Unformatted: > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-standards@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-standards-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > The 'sh -e' servers a purpose if you have a more complicated shell line say a loop. Without -e make will not stop even if there is an error in an inner command of a shell loop, while with -e it will exit. I'd say that not using -e is a posix-bug, not a feature and, in fact, there has been thoughts on the austin group mailing list to review this. I'd think even if we remove the -e in the posix case, we must retain it in the non-posix case. harti