On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 02:19:16AM +0200, Simon Ruderich wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 06:46:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> >> I agree. Maybe just stick with the original patch?
> >
> > OK. Why don't we live with that for now, then. The only advantage of the
> > "999" trickery is that it's less
Simon Ruderich writes:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 06:46:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>>> I agree. Maybe just stick with the original patch?
>>
>> OK. Why don't we live with that for now, then. The only advantage of the
>> "999" trickery is that it's less likely to come up again. If it doesn't,
>>
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 06:46:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>> I agree. Maybe just stick with the original patch?
>
> OK. Why don't we live with that for now, then. The only advantage of the
> "999" trickery is that it's less likely to come up again. If it doesn't,
> then we're happy. If it does, th
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:27:40PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > So I dunno. It does solve the problem in a way that the individual test
> > scripts wouldn't have to care about. But it's a lot of eval trickery.
>
> I agree. Maybe just stick with the original patch?
OK. Why don't we live with t
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 07:23:37PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> So one trick is that we can't just set it to a higher number. We have to
>> also open and manage that descriptor. It might be enough to do:
>>
>> if test -n "$BASH_VERSION"
>> t
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 07:23:37PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> So one trick is that we can't just set it to a higher number. We have to
> also open and manage that descriptor. It might be enough to do:
>
> if test -n "$BASH_VERSION"
> then
> exec 999>&4
> BASH_XTRACEFD=999
> fi
>
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:46:33PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > I also considered trying to bump the "set -x" output descriptor to "9".
> > That just moves the problem around, but presumably scripts are less
> > likely to go that high. :)
> >
> > It would also be possible to pick something insa
> I also considered trying to bump the "set -x" output descriptor to "9".
> That just moves the problem around, but presumably scripts are less
> likely to go that high. :)
>
> It would also be possible to pick something insanely high, like "999".
> Many shells choke on descriptors higher than 9, b
File descriptors 3 and 4 are special in our test suite, as
they link back to the test script's original stdout and
stderr. Normally this isn't something tests need to worry
about: they are free to clobber these descriptors for
sub-commands without affecting the overall script.
But there's one very
9 matches
Mail list logo
