Steven Schubiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks for working on that.
>
> Attached is a revised patch that should take "appropriately" care of
> your suggestions. I ran make check and all tests passed. Furthermore,
> I checked coreutils.texi, but there
Steven Schubiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached is a revised patch that should take "appropriately" care of
> your suggestions. I ran make check and all tests passed. Furthermore,
> I checked coreutils.texi, but there seems to be no relevant documentation
> for seq with regard to diagnostics
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for working on that.
Attached is a revised patch that should take "appropriately" care of
your suggestions. I ran make check and all tests passed. Furthermore,
I checked coreutils.texi, but there seems to be no relevant documentation
for seq with re
Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven Schubiger wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that enhances seq's diagnostics. If you agree
>> that this is the right way to go, I'll amend other files (ChangeLog,
>> etc.) as needed.
>
> Seems sensible. This is what I get on a reasonably recent tree:
>
>
Steven Schubiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Should we be additionally calling usage (EXIT_FAILURE); where now
> error() with first argument as EXIT_FAILURE is being invoked?
On one hand, I'm tempted to say if the user uses -f with a format string
containing no % directive at all, then maybe
Steven Schubiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached is a patch that enhances seq's diagnostics. If you agree
> that this is the right way to go, I'll amend other files (ChangeLog,
> etc.) as needed.
Thanks for working on that.
> diff --git a/src/seq.c b/src/seq.c
> index 261a44b..4a6f96e 10064
Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven Schubiger wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that enhances seq's diagnostics. If you agree
>> that this is the right way to go, I'll amend other files (ChangeLog,
>> etc.) as needed.
>
> Seems sensible. This is what I get on a reasonably recent tree:
>
Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems sensible. This is what I get on a reasonably recent tree:
>
> $ ./seq -f% 1
> ./seq: memory exhausted
>
> Note however that on gutsy I get the expected:
>
> $ seq -f% 1
> seq: invalid format string: `%'
> Try `seq --help' for more information.
>
Steven Schubiger wrote:
> Attached is a patch that enhances seq's diagnostics. If you agree
> that this is the right way to go, I'll amend other files (ChangeLog,
> etc.) as needed.
Seems sensible. This is what I get on a reasonably recent tree:
$ ./seq -f% 1
./seq: memory exhausted
Note however
