> Who guarantees you that ksh supplies TMOUT? OTOH, TMOUT is not in any
> way restricted, so a user (more likely: a sysadmin) could set and export
> it, and reasonably so: every Posix shell understands it, bash included.
I tested that both ksh and pdksh set TMOUT = 0 at startup, for example:
Ralf Wildenhues gmx.de> writes:
>
> zsh provides a print(1) which has -r, I don't know since which version.
> It does not set TMOUT by default. Did you try zsh before applying the
> patch?
You're right: at least zsh 4.3.4 provides print(1) which passes the test (if we
were to remove the ZSH_V
* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:50:39PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues gmx.de> writes:
>
> > Where did you get the idea that TMOUT is a reliable way to detect ksh?
>
> You're right - the existence of TMOUT is not a reliable way to detect
> ksh, and I had better not document it as such. Ho
Ralf Wildenhues gmx.de> writes:
Hi Ralf, and thanks for the thoughts,
> > Your filter based on TMOUT is different
> > than my filter on {BASH,ZSH}_VERSION; I could go either way (I tested that
> > pdksh also supplies both $TMOUT and print).
>
> Who guarantees you that ksh supplies TMOUT?
On
Hello,
* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 05:30:27PM CET:
> Paolo Bonzini gnu.org> writes:
>
> > 1) these tests do cost a few subshells (which can be as expensive as a
> > fork on bash, even if the executed command is a builtin). In the
> > attached patch I conditionalized it on ${TMOUT
Paolo Bonzini gnu.org> writes:
> > At any rate, that means we should probably teach m4sh to try "print -r --"
> > as one of its options, prior to "printf %s\\n", during _AS_ECHO_PREPARE.
>
> Maybe, also because in that case we have "print -r -n --" too. But:
>
> 1) these tests do cost a few su
> 'man print' on Solaris 10 shows that ksh also understands "print -R -" as
> a way to print "-" (but not "-n" or "--"). But you are right in realizing
> that "print -r --" seems to work nicely.
Yes, and "print -R" is broken on pdksh in that "print -R -n -n" should
print "-n" (it does on Darwin'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Paolo Bonzini on 11/10/2008 5:06 AM:
>> 1) I don't have access to systems that are old or weird enough to check
>> if the performance penalty will happen often. What do you think?
A single-fork fallback is better than nothing, and better