Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> I'm tempted to say that this would be clearer if the in_signal code path
> just followed the main logic, like this:
>
> diff --git a/run-command.c b/run-command.c
> index f40df01c77..1f58c17b6c 100644
> --- a/run-command.c
> +++ b/run-command.c
> @@ -552,20 +552,17 @@ static int wait_or_whine(pid_t pid, const char *argv0, int in_signal)
>
> while ((waiting = waitpid(pid, &status, 0)) < 0 && errno == EINTR)
> ; /* nothing */
> - if (in_signal) {
> - if (WIFEXITED(status))
> - code = WEXITSTATUS(status);
> - return code;
> - }
>
> if (waiting < 0) {
> failed_errno = errno;
> - error_errno("waitpid for %s failed", argv0);
> + if (!in_signal)
> + error_errno("waitpid for %s failed", argv0);
> } else if (waiting != pid) {
> - error("waitpid is confused (%s)", argv0);
> + if (!in_signal)
> + error("waitpid is confused (%s)", argv0);
> } else if (WIFSIGNALED(status)) {
> code = WTERMSIG(status);
> - if (code != SIGINT && code != SIGQUIT && code != SIGPIPE)
> + if (!in_signal && code != SIGINT && code != SIGQUIT && code != SIGPIPE)
> error("%s died of signal %d", argv0, code);
> /*
> * This return value is chosen so that code & 0xff
> @@ -576,10 +573,12 @@ static int wait_or_whine(pid_t pid, const char *argv0, int in_signal)
> } else if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
> code = WEXITSTATUS(status);
> } else {
> - error("waitpid is confused (%s)", argv0);
> + if (!in_signal)
> + error("waitpid is confused (%s)", argv0);
> }
>
> - clear_child_for_cleanup(pid);
> + if (!in_signal)
> + clear_child_for_cleanup(pid);
>
> errno = failed_errno;
> return code;
>
> That's a lot more tedious "if (!in_signal)" checks, but:
>
> - we don't have to duplicate any of the actual application logic
>
> - we'd now cover the extra cases for waitpid failing or returning the
> wrong pid (previously if waitpid() failed we'd still look at status,
> which could contain complete garbage!)
Yeah, the repeated "if (!in_signal)" look a bit ugly, but fixing
that "we only deal with ifexited in in_signal case" to do the right
thing would make the code even more annoying and harder to maintain.
