cygcheck exit status

Dave Korn
Wed Jul 6 15:49:00 GMT 2005

----Original Message----
>From: Igor Pechtchanski
>Sent: 06 July 2005 16:36

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha <at>> writes:
>>>> Because it's in a for loop, and when the first file fails but second
>>>> succeeds, you still want the overall command to exit with failure.
>>> That's the correct intent, but shouldn't it be &&= instead of &=,
>>> technically?
>> There's no such thing as &&=.  And even if there was, you wouldn't want
>> to use it, because it would short-circuit running cygcheck().  The whole
>> point of the boolean collector is to run the test on every file, but to
>> remember if any of the tests failed.  Maybe thinking of a short-circuit
>> in the reverse direction will help you understand:
>> [snip]
> Ok, ok, IOWTWIWT... :-)  I'm well aware of the short circuiting
> behavior of &&.
> 	Igor

  I thought it too when I first looked at the code, but realised the
short-circuit implication before I had time to write a reply....   But it
_was_ news to me that there's no &&= operator!

Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list