Dear Martin,
Thank you for your very thoughtful and polite reply.
If I understand correctly, you thought the
> ./d 2>&1
in
$ echo 'set -x; echo "a" >> /dev/stderr ; echo "b" >> /dev/stderr' > ./c ;
chmod 755 ./c ; ./c > ./d 2>&1 ; cat ./d ; rm ./c ./d
opens fd#2 without O_APPEND.
I seem to have worked around the problem by changing
> ./d 2>&1
to
>> ./d 2>&1
Ie:
$ echo 'set -x; echo "a" >> /dev/stderr ; echo "b" >> /dev/stderr' > ./c ;
chmod 755 ./c ; ./c >> ./d 2>&1 ; cat ./d ; rm ./c ./d
My theory is that the additional ">" causes
1.) bash to open fd#2 with O_APPEND,
2.) fd#2's file pointers to be kept in a consistent state, and
3.) the missing "a" to appear.
What do you think?
Does that make sense?
Thanks,
Kingsley
--
Time is the fire in which we all burn.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
