Re: Handling of shell builtins in make(1)

From: Max Okumoto (okumoto_at_ucsd.edu)
Date: 05/24/05

  • Next message: Scott Long: "Re: Handling of shell builtins in make(1)" 
    To: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 17:21:06 -0700

    Harti Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> writes:

    > Hi all,
    >
    > I think I found a problem in the shell code in make(1), but I'm not
    > sure whether to fix it or not and how. The problem is as follows: in
    > compat mode (this is the default mode when make(1) is not called with
    > -j) the command lines of a target are executed by one shell per line
    > (this is also how Posix wants it). To reduce the number of shells make
    > does an optimisation: when the command line does not contain one of a
    > pre-defined set of meta characters and does not start with one of a
    > predefined set of shell builtins, make directly exec's the command
    > instead of using an intermediate shell. The problem is that the
    > current list of builtins is limited to:
    >
    > alias cd eval exec exit read set ulimit unalias umask unset wait
    >
    > Obviously this is not the full set of shell builtins and does also not
    > contain the shell reserved words.
    >
    > The result of this is that for one and the same command you can get
    > different behaviour whether you execute it via make(1) or via sh -c
    > '...'.
    > As an example take echo(1). When called via the sh -c you get the builtin
    > echo which supports the -e option, when executed by make(1) you get
    > /bin/echo which doesn't. If you suddenly include a shell meta
    > character in the command line:
    >
    > foo:
    > echo "MAKEFLAGS: ${MAKEFLAGS}"
    >
    > you suddenly get also the builtin (':' is a meta character).
    >
    > For the reserved words the situation is almost the same. With the
    > following makefile:
    >
    > foo:
    > if
    >
    > one gets:
    >
    > if:No such file or directory, while
    >
    > foo:
    > if [ -x /bin/sh ] ; then echo hey ; fi
    >
    > you get what you expect.
    >
    > I think all this may be very confusing. The question is what to do. I
    > see the following options:
    >
    > 1. leave it as it is.
    >
    > 2. include the Posix reserved words and builtins into the list.
    >
    > 3. include all reserved words and builtins of our shell into the list.

    4. Extend .SHELL: to allow specifing a list of built-in. And then
       we should define them in bsd.sys.mk or some other config file.

    > Option (3) is probably best. With (2) you still get different
    > behaviour for the two command lines in:
    >
    > foo:
    > bind -h
    > bind -h *
    >
    > (the first line will try to find bind in the path while the second
    > will execute the shell builtin).
    >
    > Opinions?

    This will allow people to add keywords for their shells, and
    remove that stuff from the make source code. Hard coding it
    in the binary is wrong.

                     Max Okumoto
    >
    > harti
    > _______________________________________________
    > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
    > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
    > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Scott Long: "Re: Handling of shell builtins in make(1)"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: listing nondirectories
      ... For commands or builtins that accept (or have even ... What if a command line parameter (that is, ... The corresponding shell ... Echo is especially egregious is this regard; ...
      (comp.unix.shell)
    • Re: zsh: how to make a function fail?
      ... foo { ... the command terminates normally without setting $?. ... Causes a shell function or. ... If return was executed from a trap in a TRAPNAL function, ...
      (comp.unix.shell)
    • Re: sed command spanning multiple lines
      ... I would like to re-write the command: ... | sort -u> foo ... The command lines are interpreted by the shell, not by the programs, ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: Handling of shell builtins in make(1)
      ... > I think I found a problem in the shell code in make, ... > command lines of a target are executed by one shell per line (this is ... > predefined set of shell builtins, ...
      (freebsd-arch)
    • Re: Handling of shell builtins in make(1)
      ... SL>> I think I found a problem in the shell code in make, ... SL>> is not called with -j) the command ... SL>> builtins, make directly exec's the command instead of using an intermediate ... SL>> foo: ...
      (freebsd-arch)