On 3/15/25 07:37, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 07:29:39AM +0100, Christian Schulte wrote: > >> Hi @misc, >> >> I recently stumbled upon an issue with GNU printf(1). I was using >> echo(1) in a testsuite.at on OpenBSD successfully, but that failed on >> linux badly. The OpenBSD man page of echo(1) contains this sentence: >> >> Where portability is paramount, use printf(1). >> >> So I replaced echo(1) with printf(1). This leads to... >> >> OpenBSD: >> >> x500$ printf -0 >> -0x500$ printf -something >> -somethingx500$ >> >> which is the expected output. On linux I get >> >> schulte@vps:~$ printf -0 >> -bash: printf: -0: invalid option >> printf: usage: printf [-v var] format [arguments] >> schulte@vps:~$ printf -something >> -bash: printf: -s: invalid option >> printf: usage: printf [-v var] format [arguments] >> >> Would you rate this a bug in GNU printf(1)? >> >> -- >> Christian >> > > No, i would rate as a usage error. Use -- to separate options form the > rest of the arguments. > > print -- -0 > > -Otto
Thanks. Adding -- everywhere should make it portable. Would you mind explaining the following to me as well? For example: x500$ echo -n \\u0041 \u0041x500$ Expected output. x500$ printf -- \\u0041 printf: unknown escape sequence `\u' u0041x500$ x500$ printf -- \\\u0041 printf: unknown escape sequence `\u' u0041x500$ x500$ printf -- \\\\u0041 \u0041x500$ Why does printf(1) require four backslashes to yield the same output? The man page just mentions: \\ Write a backslash character. I would have expected \\\\ to write two backslash characters. Is this related to the shell, or to the command? -- Christian
