Path: csiph.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Exit status by no-argument `return' for function calls in trap handlers
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 16:12:01 -0400
Organization: ITS, Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 48
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.623.1587240727.3066.bug-bash@gnu.org>
References: <CAFLRLk_+Je7ZHEYp_a4PLBwYFZffqfsYgp5jtPCnAH=apmHatQ@mail.gmail.com> <7f1850ca-fb02-35db-e1f6-80d7ae937ff8@case.edu>
Reply-To: chet.ramey@case.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: chet.ramey@case.edu
To: Koichi Murase <myoga.murase@gmail.com>, bug-bash@gnu.org
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
Autocrypt: addr=chet.ramey@case.edu; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQGiBEEOsGwRBACFa0A1oa71HSZLWxAx0svXzhOZNQZOzqHmSuGOG92jIpQpr8DpvgRh40Yp AwdcXb8QG1J5yGAKeevNE1zCFaA725vGSdHUyypHouV0xoWwukYO6qlyyX+2BZU+okBUqoWQ koWxiYaCSfzB2Ln7pmdys1fJhcgBKf3VjWCjd2XJTwCgoFJOwyBFJdugjfwjSoRSwDOIMf0D /iQKqlWhIO1LGpMrGX0il0/x4zj0NAcSwAk7LaPZbN4UPjn5pqGEHBlf1+xDDQCkAoZ/VqES GZragl4VqJfxBr29Ag0UDvNbUbXoxQsARdero1M8GiAIRc50hj7HXFoERwenbNDJL86GPLAQ OTGOCa4W2o29nFfFjQrsrrYHzVtyA/9oyKvTeEMJ7NA3VJdWcmn7gOu0FxEmSNhSoV1T4vP2 1Wf7f5niCCRKQLNyUy0wEApQi4tSysdz+AbgAc0b/bHYVzIf2uO2lIEZQNNt+3g2bmXgloWm W5fsm/di50Gm1l1Na63d3RZ00SeFQos6WEwLUHEB0yp6KXluXLLIZitEJLQwQ2hldCBSYW1l eSAoQ2FzZSBzdGFuZGFyZCkgPGNoZXQucmFtZXlAY2FzZS5lZHU+iF8EExECAB8FAkPi19EC GwMHCwkIBwMCAQMVAgMDFgIBAh4BAheAAAoJELtYafBk6nSrelkAn31Gsuib7GcCZHbv5L5t VKYR9LklAJ4hzUHKA49Z0QXR+qCb80osIcmPSbkBDQRBDrBvEAQAkK6TAOKBEM+EC4j6V/7o /riVZqcgU5cid2qG9TXdwNtD9a3kvA/ObZBO93sX59wc6Bnwo4VJxsOmMlpGrAjJsxNwg3QH akEtf8LXRbVpj5xStdmBdQZUhIQyalo/2/TZq5OijtddUQcL5cs70hTv/FpT3wUvr2Xr8rjF 41IFEz8AAwcD/A0CZEGlzIrT5WCBnl6xBog/8vKiUCbarByat3d1mL6DbizvKNXQRTC9E/vE dENAWCQCjr75Bu55xT8n3SXGtWdDC5xmZ/P3OBYORP8yl8H8I1FIosWOFirbIeYdZPq8SPD1 HL+EXo9zSiHVrrZRJ19ooCKKbSdXHFCY+aJG+0KZiEkEGBECAAkFAkEOsG8CGwwACgkQu1hp 8GTqdKvjcACfZlkVCDwaz/NTO9cy3t69oWpVPNwAnRwe0qk/WL/gfhH346xh5B3HFbFN
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFLRLk_+Je7ZHEYp_a4PLBwYFZffqfsYgp5jtPCnAH=apmHatQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.22.103.226; envelope-from=chet.ramey@case.edu; helo=mpv1-2015.case.edu
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:16167

On 4/16/20 1:21 PM, Koichi Murase wrote:

> Bash Version: 5.0
> Patch Level: 11
> Release Status: release
> 
> Summary:
> 
>   The behavior of no-argument `return' in trap handlers has been
>   changed from Bash 4.4 to follow the description of POSIX.  Recently
>   this behavior caused problems in my Bash script.  I am wondering
>   whether this change actually matches with the behavior meant by
>   POSIX because the change introduces unreasonable constraints in
>   writing shell functions.
> 
>   For the condition of this special treatment of `return', POSIX says
>   ``When return is executed in a trap action''.  Here are two possible
>   interpretation: (A) `return's specified in the argument string of
>   `trap' builtin are affected, or (B) all the `return's in entire
>   runtime function-call tree in trap processing are affected.  I guess
>   that POSIX wanted to provide a way to exit functions that received
>   signals without changing the value of `$?'.  If that is the case,
>   the POSIX should have meant (A).  However, the current Bash
>   implementation behaves as if it follows the interpretation (B).

The POSIX wording seems straightforward and implies (B). The `action'
is a string that is defined to behave as if it were the argument to
`eval', so it can be an arbitrary command, which makes (A) unlikely.

You could always ask the austin-group list for an interpretation, or
send me something that I could forward to the list for you.


>   If all the `return's in the entire function-call tree are affected
>   in trap processing as in the interpretation (B), one cannot reliably
>   use no-argument `return' to return the last-command exit status.  To
>   avoid the problem, one has to always write the exit status
>   explicitly as `return $?', and there is no use case for no-argument
>   `return' at all. 

That's an unreasonable statement, throwing out all uses of return without
an argument because of how it behaves while running a trap.

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
		 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/