On Wed, Jun 2, 2021, 10:27 konsolebox, wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 4:36 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
> >
> > On 5/22/21 8:29 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> > > `read -e` doesn't recognize custom completions (at least on my basic
> > > observations). For example, if I enable `complete -IW 'someword
> > >
Hello,
Running the fc builtin on an empty history list results in a
segmentation fault from bash.
Additional info:
* Operating system: Arch Linux
* Architecture: x86_64
* bash version: 5.1.8(1)-release
Steps to reproduce:
$ bash --noprofile --norc
$ HISTCONTROL=ignorespace
$ history -c
$
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fno-plt -
DDEFAULT_PATH_VALUE='/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin' -
DSTANDARD_UTILS_PATH='/usr/bin' -DSYS_BASHRC='/etc/ba
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 04:20:22PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> It depends on the libc implementation of setlocale(3).
>
> This has come up a number of times before:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2015-07/msg00073.html
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2017-04/msg00063.
I'm glad to see the issue is not widespread, for sure!
I'm running fully updated Pop! OS 20.04 (debian based), which also has an older
version of bash (installed natively).
Bash Version: 5.0Patch Level: 17Release Status: release
Hopefully the issue has already been fixed, and the `apt` packages
On 6/15/21 3:19 PM, Zachary Fields wrote:
Again, this can be reproduced with only Valgrind and Bash installed, by
copy/pasting the following command:
Don't be so sure:
==34794== LEAK SUMMARY:
==34794==definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==34794==indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==
Again, this can be reproduced with only Valgrind and Bash installed, by
copy/pasting the following command:
echo "#! /bin/bashecho 'Am I leaking?'" > leak.sh \&& chmod +x leak.sh \&&
LC_ALL=C valgrind -v --leak-check=full /bin/bash leak.sh
This is the best log I know how to generate using Valg
On 6/6/21 6:31 AM, Ilkka Virta wrote:
Can you write a set of rules that encapsulates what you would like to see?
Or can the group?
I think it's a bit weird that !(.foo) can match . and .. when * doesn't.
The other means roughly "anything here", and the other means "anything but
.foo
On 6/5/21 8:42 PM, Nora Platiel wrote:
The "matched explicitly" refers to the previous sentence, which talks about
the `.' at the start of a filename or path component needing to be matched
explicitly by a pattern beginning with a `.' or containing a `.' at the
right spot (after a `/'). I can ad
On 6/12/21 12:16 PM, Zachary Fields via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne
Again SHell wrote:
LEAK SUMMARY: ==1365336== definitely lost: 12 bytes in 1 blocks ==1365336==
How about more details fromn valgrind about where it thinks the leak is?
--
``The lyf so short, the craft
10 matches
Mail list logo
