PS: Traditional shells (only) are too offtopic on bug-bash;
I guess, we better limit to bug-autoconf.
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 11:21:01PM -, Sven Mascheck wrote:
[...]
> : > stdout > stderr
[...]
> > It fails on old Ultrix sh, which can't redirect the same fd more than once
> > in a single statement. But that platform is relatively dead these days.
>
> More detailed:
>
> - It actually w
* Stephane Chazelas wrote on Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 09:53:15AM CET:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 11:21:01PM -, Sven Mascheck wrote:
> [...]
> > : > stdout > stderr
> [...]
> > > It fails on old Ultrix sh, which can't redirect the same fd more than once
> > > in a single statement. But that pl
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Stephane Chazelas on 10/29/2008 3:32 AM:
: > stdout > stderr
>>>
>>> For shell portability, I'll write the first line as
>>> : > stdout
>>> : > stderr
>>> though.
>>
>> Why?
>
> It fails on old Ultrix sh, which can't redirect the same fd more than once
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 10/29/2008 6:22 AM:
>>> - ( :; $1 ) >"$at_stdout" 2>"$at_stderr"
>>> + : >"$at_stderr"
>>> + ( :; $1 ) >>"$at_stdout" 2>>"$at_stderr"
>> What's the ":;" for?
>
> A workaround to the bash 3.2 bug, fixed in bash32-030, wher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Stephane Chazelas on 10/29/2008 3:32 AM:
>> Yes. For shell portability, I'll write the first line as
>> : > stdout
>> : > stderr
>>
>> though.
>
> Why?
It fails on old Ultrix sh, which can't redirect the same fd more than once
in a
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:51:13PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[...]
> > : > stdout > stderr
[...]
> Yes. For shell portability, I'll write the first line as
> : > stdout
> : > stderr
>
> though.
Why?
I can't see why ": > stdout > stderr" wouldn't work in any
shell. It should even work in
Hi Stephane,
* Stephane Chazelas wrote on Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:26:18AM CET:
>
> I have to admit I would have thought the code above to be safe
> as well and I wonder if it's the same on all systems. But I can
> reproduce the problem on Linux. As far as I can tell, if you
> don't use O_APPEND,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:12:24PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[...]
> --- foo.sh ---
> #! /bin/sh
>
> do_work ()
> {
> sleep 1
> echo "work $i is done"
> }
>
> for i in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
> do
> (
> do_work $i
> ) &
> done
> wait
>
> --- bar.sh ---
> #! /bin/sh
>
> ./foo.sh > s
