Hello Karl, * Karl Berry wrote on Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 08:31:37PM CEST: > > However, on MinGW all three tests fail because the program outputs CRLF > > line endings, while the test suite creates files with LF ending. > > Um, why? That is, why does cat>foo produce LF files while hello>foo > produces CRLF files?
I think with MSYS the situation is this: cat operates in binary mode, thus does not change the data it is given. The here-document created by the shell has LF, as your test script has LF endings. hello OTOH creates text mode output, thus CRLF. > Is this different in MinGW than under Cygwin? Yes. (Even if it is not officially different at the moment, and even if I simply don't know the exact MSYS semantics: Cygwin has changed some details in the not so distant past, were they bugfixes or intentional semantic changes; so by all means one cannot assume they are equal.) > (I'm probably just dumb, > but I cannot infer this behavior from > http://www.cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-textbinary.html.) I find the Cygwin rules very complicated and incomprehensible in theory and in real-world usage (where you usually have more than one tool interacting). But that may be just me. > Can we easily get cat>foo (or some equivalent) to produce CRLF files? You could use printf '%s\r\n' "$line" or similar, but it would not save you from special-casing, I guess. > That seems like it would be a tiny bit cleaner to me than deleting the > \r from the hello>foo output. You could just grep for interesting output; that's what I prefer. Cheers, Ralf
