Date:	Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:26:49 +0100
From:	Laszlo Molnar <laszlo DOT molnar AT eth DOT ericsson DOT se>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: DJGPP port of Perl 5.6.1 & POSIX::WEXITSTATUS
Message-ID:	<20030227082649.Q21030@libra.eth.ericsson.se>
References:	<200302262028 DOT h1QKSl606431 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <3E5D3365 DOT 16A41275 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To:	<3E5D3365.16A41275@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>; from rich@phekda.freeserve.co.uk on Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:36:37PM +0000
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:36:37PM +0000, Richard Dawe wrote:
> ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se wrote:
> > According to Richard Dawe:
> > > There seem to be two solutions:
> > >
> > > 1. Make POSIX::WEXITSTATUS (and the other POSIX:W*) do something special
> > > for DJGPP, to cope with the inconsistency between the return code of
> > > Perl's "system" call and POSIX::W*.

I'd vote for this one. The return value of child programs are widely
tested in the perl test suite. So changing the DJGPP specific hack
which supports this is not recommended.

> BTW please keep CC'ing Laszlo, until we know whether he's subscribed to
> djgpp-workers. He did the most recent work on porting Perl to DJGPP, I think.
> I've forwarded your reply to my original message to him.

I'm subscribed to this list.

Laszlo

- Raw text -