Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030112211313.0276dec0@pop3.cris.com>
X-Sender: rrschulz AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 21:22:55 -0800
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Randall R Schulz <rrschulz AT cris DOT com>
Subject: Re: Return codes and pipelines
In-Reply-To: <20030113045329.GA15590@butch.jgcomp.com>
References: <5 DOT 2 DOT 0 DOT 9 DOT 2 DOT 20030112141731 DOT 01df7bc8 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com>
 <83040F98B407E6428FEC18AC720F5D73015BA93F AT exchange DOT tropicnetworks DOT com>
 <5 DOT 2 DOT 0 DOT 9 DOT 2 DOT 20030112141731 DOT 01df7bc8 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Jon,

Well, Cygwin does not include Bourne shell, it has BASH, ash and zsh, but 
it does appear that the status returned by a parenthesized pipeline under 
BASH is that of the last command in that pipeline.

Strictly speaking, that's not at odds with the first part of what I said, 
which is that the parent - child process relationship between processes in 
a pipeline is not specified.

So this leaves one puzzle: Why is it that Rolf is getting different results 
for this command between Linux and Cygwin?

     (false | true) && echo true || echo false

Rolf, which shells are you using on Linux and Cygwin?

Randall Schulz


At 20:53 2003-01-12, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 02:21:45PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > Rolf,
> >
> > One posting is enough, really.
> >
> > There is no guaranteed or specified parent child relationship between the
> > processes in a pipeline. This means that you cannot predict which 
> process's
> > status will be the one returned as that of the pipeline as a whole.
>
>
> > At 14:09 2003-01-12, Rolf Campbell wrote:
> > >/home/rcampbell> (true | true) && echo true || echo false
> > >true
> > >/home/rcampbell> (true | false) && echo true || echo false
> > >false
> > >/home/rcampbell> (false | true) && echo true || echo false
> > >true
> > >/home/rcampbell> (false | false) && echo true || echo false
> > >false
> > >
> > >The third test above yields different results when run on Linux.  I'm
> > >wondering if this was the desired result or not?
>
>
>There is (or had been last I looked at the source) a defined relationship
>in the Bourne and Korn shells at least.
>
>The parent forks the last command in a pipeline which then becomes the
>parent of the other commands in the pipeline.  Thus the original parent
>only sees the last command's exit status.
>
>This scheme was done to implement the following behavior back around
>System V.2 in the great Bourne shell "rewrite in C".
>
> >From the current Solaris man page for Bourne Shell:
>
>        ...  .  Each  command  is  run  as a separate process; the
>      shell waits for the last  command  to  terminate.  The  exit
>      status  of a pipeline is the exit status of the last command
>      in the pipeline.
>
>The addition of the pipefail option to recent ksh93 versions suggests
>this relation-ship scheme has been altered in those shells.  But I
>do not think it appropriate to generically say there is no defined
>relationship as if it applies to every shell out there.
>
>--
>Jon H. LaBadie                  jcyg AT jgcomp DOT com


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/