Re: bin/59602: sh produced unwanted diagnostic

["Christos Zoulas via gnats" <gnats-admin%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/59602; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: bin/59602: sh produced unwanted diagnostic
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 13:37:18 -0400

 On 2025-08-18 1:20 pm, Martin Husemann via gnats wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR bin/59602; it has been noted by 
 > GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
 > Cc:
 > Subject: Re: bin/59602: sh produced unwanted diagnostic
 > Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 19:18:42 +0200
 > 
 >  On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 04:55:01PM +0000, christos%zoulas.com@localhost wrote:
 >  > 	Pax tests are failing with:
 >  > 	cd: Unable to determine new working directory
 > 
 >  I am not sure this behaviour is better or worse than before (or if it
 >  should be restricted to interactive mode).
 > 
 >  However, I made the pax tests ignore stderr earlier today, so they are
 >  not failing any more (the diagnostic output is unrelated to the issues
 >  tested).
 
 Well, it is also inconsistent: sh -c '{ cd foo; }' does not complain.
 No other shell complains about changing directory. The error is more
 confusing for me; did the operation succeed or did it fail (it 
 succeeded).
 And if the shell was smarter, it could avoid doing a full getcwd() in 
 that
 case because it can still stat("foo") and stat("foo/bar") and determine 
 that
 they are both directories and append the right path to $PWD for example 
 (I am
 not suggesting to do this, but I don't see why we need to do getcwd() 
 for chdir()).
 
 
 christos
 
 -- 
 christos