I looked at your patches and immediately thought ``these patches
can't be right'' as I was expecting it to deal with things such as
xargs -I [] echo args are [], duplicated are []
I'm also dubious about the patches working for large volumes on
standard input. At this point I scrapped the email I was composing
'cos I didn't have time to look into it further :-/
I think it's important to test any patches with a large number of
large path names as input - so that ARG_MAX is reached before the
5000 argument limit and we can see that we don't end up getting E2BIG
because of an accidental overflow/miscalculation.
Sorry I don't have more time to spend on it :-/
> I don't have a copy of SuSv2 or anything else that defines -I and -i,
> but from what I can gather, -i is the same as "-I {}" and -I allows
> things like this:
>
> dima@spike% ./xargs -I [] echo CMD LINE [] ARGS < test
> CMD LINE this is the contents of the test file ARGS
>
> dima@spike% ./xargs -I [] echo CMD [] LINE ARGS < test
> CMD this is the contents of the test file LINE ARGS
>
> dima@spike% ./xargs -I [] echo [] CMD LINE ARGS < test
> this is the contents of the test file CMD LINE ARGS
>
> Does that mean everyone is blind and missed my arrogant cross-post of
> the amazingly short patch to do this, or are we just interested in
> discussing it and not testing the implementation? ;-)
>
> FWIW, I'm not sure the patch is entirely correct; xargs' processing of
> this stuff looks like black magic. It works, but I'm not sure if I
> failed to cater to some other weird assumptions it makes. This is why
> it'd help if someone would at least look at it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dima Dorfman
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
