On 05/06/2013 10:00 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 5/3/13 5:48 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> [+cc bug-gnulib, see below for a reason]
>>
>> Minimal reproducer of the regression:
>>
>> $ cat foo.bash
>> echo "$BASH_VERSION"
>> declare -A
On 05/06/2013 12:33 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini writes:
>
>> Four times slower, yikes. Any idea where these numbers might be coming
>> from?
>
> Try building without debugging options (make DEUBG= MALLOC_DEBUG=)
>
Thanks! This solved the issue (af
Compared with Bash 4.2, the development version of bash is very slow
in running autoconf-generated configure scripts (or, to be more
precise, that's where I noticed the slowness; it might very well be
more generalized, but I haven't checked for that).
Some numbers:
$ /bin/bash -c 'echo "$BASH_V
[+cc bug-gnulib, see below for a reason]
Minimal reproducer of the regression:
$ cat foo.bash
echo "$BASH_VERSION"
declare -A hash
echo ${hash[a/b]}
echo $?
$ /bin/bash foo.bash
4.2.45(1)-release
0
$ ~/bleeding/bin/bash foo.bash
4.3.0(1)-alpha
foo.bash: line 3: a/b: divis
On 03/29/2013 12:57 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:41:46AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> include was designed to search the path for functions that
>> are relative paths. While the normal sourcepath allows searching for
>> filenames on the search path, I don't believe (p
On 12/14/2012 06:58 PM, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
> My point was to DESIGN for html and the rich environment it offers, not to
> try to convert a Model T into a Mercedes.
>
> I'm not wild about a wiki either, if its a free for all. If on the other
> hand, it is a submission platform that gets reviewed
On 12/14/2012 06:07 PM, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
> I'm not trying to start a war, but ...
>
> Has anyone entertained the idea of getting rid of the man pages and the
> info system? Those are relics of the tty era.
>
Don't make the error of confusing the texinfo system with just the
info format. I, f
On 10/30/2012 08:31 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> [MEGA-SNIP]
>
> Knowledge is power, and all of that.
>
Agreed. In fact, I wasn't aware of he possibility you described,
so I really appreciated your explanation. It wasn't my intention
to appear to dismissive of it; I apologize if I gave that
impress
On 10/30/2012 08:24 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini writes:
>
>> If it ain't broken, don't fix it ;-)
>
> As you found out, it _is_ broken.
>
Actually, I was speaking about the fact that, even after reading
Bob's explanation about how to make
Hi Bob, thanks for the tips. However ...
On 10/30/2012 07:37 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Anyway, my /bin/sh is bash ...
>> $ ls -l /bin/sh
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 8 2010 /bin/sh -> bash
>> I'm on Debian Unstable BTW (so
Hi Chet.
On 10/30/2012 07:10 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 10/30/12 1:53 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> On 10/30/2012 06:28 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> Stefano Lattarini writes:
>>>
>>>> $ ./system-suid
>>>> [8204] ruid = 1000, euid = 0,
On 10/30/2012 06:28 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini writes:
>
>> $ ./system-suid
>> [8204] ruid = 1000, euid = 0, suid = 0
>
> Looks like your /bin/sh is broken.
>
How "broken" exactly? Honest question.
Anyway, my /bin/sh is bash ...
On 10/30/2012 05:06 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini writes:
>
>> From experimenting, I've found out that bash (4.2.20), when invoked
>> as "sh", doesn't reset the effective user id to the real user id,
>> even if called *without* the &#x
>From experimenting, I've found out that bash (4.2.20), when invoked
as "sh", doesn't reset the effective user id to the real user id,
even if called *without* the '-p' option.
This behaviour seems consistent with that of other POSIX shells like
dash (0.5.7) and ksh (JM 93u+ 2012-02-29), so I beli
Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini
---
doc/bash.html| 54 ++---
doc/bashref.html | 28 +++--
doc/bashref.info | 329 ---
3 files changed, 227 insertions(+), 184 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/bash.html b/doc/bash.html
index d1b6489
s.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2012-06/msg4.html>
Copyright-paperwork-exempt: yes
Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini
---
INSTALL | 4 ++--
MANIFEST | 2 +-
Makefile.in | 4 ++--
configure.in => configure.ac | 0
d
On 06/22/2012 09:47 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> By accident I keyed in :
>>
>> cd //
>>
>> and noticed that my prompt included both slashes.
>
> Posix says shells have to leave two leading slashes in a pathname alone.
> Three or more can be collapsed to one, but two have to stay unchanged.
> This has
On 03/19/2012 08:54 PM, Lane Schwartz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I have a file that contains a bash script, is there any
> straightforward way of determining whether that script can be parsed
> successfully as a Bash script, without actually running the file?
>
Yes: the "-n" option. Simple examples:
On 03/03/2012 08:28 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>> Or here is a what it sounds as a marginally better idea to me: Bash could
>> start supporting a new environment variable like "BASHLIB" (a' la'
On 03/02/2012 02:50 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 2/29/12 2:42 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> In the middle of the histrionics and gibberish, we have the nugget of an
> actual proposal (thanks, Eric):
>
> [to allow `.' to look anchored relative pathnames up in $PATH]
>
>> About the best we can do
Hello everybody. Just my 2 cents about this ...
On Monday 28 November 2011, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 11/28/11 4:48 AM, Roman Rakus wrote:
> > On 11/28/2011 06:28 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> I don't think I'll push every change to git as soon as it happens, but
> >>> > I'm thinking about fairly
On Wednesday 23 November 2011, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Steven W. Orr" writes:
>
> > I think we're beating this one to death, but I have point out that
> > telling perl to run a print command whose output is redirected by bash
> > is not the same as telling bash to run a builtin echo command that
On Thursday 18 August 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Hi Eric.
>
> On Thursday 18 August 2011, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 08/18/2011 08:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > >> how do I write a function that would print the same as
> > >> $ \ls | cat
> >
>
Hi Eric.
On Thursday 18 August 2011, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 08:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> how do I write a function that would print the same as
> >> $ \ls | cat
>
> Useless use of cat. This can be done with \ls -1.
>
> > f(){ for a in "$@"; do echo "$a"; done; }
>
> Or skip the
At Friday 30 July 2010, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:49:22PM +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > But then, maybe an exit status of `2' instead of `1' in case of
> > errors in ((...)) would be helpful -- currently the exit status
> > is still `1
At Friday 30 July 2010, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 30/07/10 19:55, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > At Thursday 29 July 2010, Andrew Benton wrote:
> >> andy:~$ count=0
> >> andy:~$ ((count++))
> >> andy:~$ echo $?
> >> 1
> >> andy:~$ ((count++))
>
At Thursday 29 July 2010, Andrew Benton wrote:
>
> andy:~$ count=0
> andy:~$ ((count++))
> andy:~$ echo $?
> 1
> andy:~$ ((count++))
> andy:~$ echo $?
> 0
I don't think it's a bug, it's just an effect of:
1. `((EXPR))' returning a non-zero exit status iff EXPR evaluates
to zero, and
2. `v
At Tuesday 22 June 2010, Andres P wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Stefano Lattarini
>
> wrote:
> >> ++ false # Subshell false
> >> +++ TRIGGERED_ERR # Ignores outer "|| true"
> >
> > No, it doesen't even see it; the scrip
At Tuesday 22 June 2010, Andres P wrote:
> Bash 4.1 does not set the ERR trap:
>
> $ env -i HOME="$HOME" TERM="$TERM" bash3 <<\!
>
> set -o errexit
> set -o errtrace
>
> TRIGGERED_ERR() { return $?; }
>
> trap 'TRIGGERED_ERR' ERR
>
> set -o xtrace
>
> var=$(false) || true
Here, the subs
At Thursday 03 September 2009, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> Thanks for the report. This will be fixed in the next version.
Good! And thanks to you for your quick answers and your useful
software.
>
> Chet
Regards,
Stefano
Hi everybody.
I found the following bug while running some of my bash scripts on
GNU/Linux with stdout redirected to /dev/full, to see if write errors
where correctly detected and reported.
It turned out that, on write errors, the printf builtin correctly
returns a non-zero status (thus my scrip
At Saturday 22 August 2009, Chet Ramey wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> I have the following scripts:
>>
>> [CUT]
>>
>> I thought that when bash detect a syntax errors in the script,
>> it would pass a $? != 0 to the code in the exit trap, regardless
> Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
> > I thought that when bash detect a syntax errors in a script,
> > it would pass a $? != 0 to the code in the exit trap, regardless
> > of whether `set -e' is active or not.
> >
> > [CUT]
> >
> > I thin
I have the following scripts:
$ cat nobug.sh
trap 'e=$?; [ $e -gt 0 ] && echo "OK" || echo "BAD"; exit $e' 0
# syntax error here
&& true
$ cat bug.sh
set -e
trap 'e=$?; [ $e -gt 0 ] && echo "OK" || echo "BAD"; exit $e' 0
# syntax error here
&& true
I thought that when bash detect a syn
I have the following scripts:
$ cat nobug.sh
trap 'e=$?; [ $e -gt 0 ] && echo "OK" || echo "BAD"; exit $e' 0
# syntax error here
&& true
$ cat bug.sh
set -e
trap 'e=$?; [ $e -gt 0 ] && echo "OK" || echo "BAD"; exit $e' 0
# syntax error here
&& true
I thought that when bash detect a syn
35 matches
Mail list logo
