[BusyBox] exit() vs return;

[Jonas Holmberg]

Thanks!
I'll see what I can do. I've been trying the busybox shell as well and it looks like it also would benefit from being able to call the different tools as builtins. I really need the tools to be called as functions from the shell (and not as new processes) in order to make a useful shell-script (we don't have an MMU on our chip, ETRAX 100, which makes loading busybox pretty slow...). I probably won't make it to the 0.47 release though (got some other stuff to do right now).
/Jonas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Andersen [mailto:andersen at lineo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 9:54 PM
> To: Jonas Holmberg
> Cc: 'busybox at busybox.net'
> Subject: Re: [BusyBox] exit() vs return;
> 
> 
> On Wed Sep 06, 2000 at 05:13:55PM +0200, Jonas Holmberg wrote:
> > Hi all, I have built ash with the busybox functions 
> compiled in. This was
> > wery easy thanks to the way busybox and ash use argc and 
> argv as parameters
> > to all main functions :). But there is one thing giving me 
> an headache: a lot
> > of busybox functions use exit(). It would be much easier to 
> use busybox
> > functions in another shell if they only used return and not 
> exit(). I do not
> > se any other solution than removing as many of the exit()s 
> as possible. Has
> > anyone thought of this? Would you be interested in patches 
> if I start
> > replacing the exit()s with returns? Some code may have to 
> be restructured to
> > make this possible though.
> > 
> 
> I am open to a patch...
> 
>  -Erik
> 
> --
> Erik B. Andersen   email:  andersen at lineo.com
> --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>