Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:17:17 +0400 (MSD) From: Andrey Alekseyev <uitm@zenon.net> To: Pete French <pfrench@firstcallgroup.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-stable-local@be-well.no-ip.com, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: minor annoyances Message-ID: <200208211017.g7LAHHw26813@uitm.zenon.net> In-Reply-To: <E17hSKW-00008v-00@mailhost.firstcallgroup.co.uk> from Pete French at "Aug 21, 2002 11:03:12 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > If it works, '(aaa &) && bb' can't mean anything other than 'aaa & bb'. > > The "bb" always executes, regardless of the result of "aaa". > > It does ? I would have thought that this would only execute "bb" if the > fork succeeds on the right hand side. How else do you test for fork failing ? At least it definitely will fail if aaa doesn't exist. (aaa &) && bb This won't execute bb unless aaa is runnable. I can't say for sure about fork operation itself. I always thought it's a valid check for failed fork also, but it seems that sh(1) terminates ubnormally if it can't fork aaa. However, at this time I have no time for more testing. > -pcf. -- Andrey Alekseyev. Zenon N.S.P. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208211017.g7LAHHw26813>