ice yahoo.es> writes:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a cuestion. Why en HPUX system when you type a du over an
> empty directory you receive a zero size directory and when you do
> over a Linux system you receive 4 kB for each directory.
>
> If you test it over a directory with many subdirectory you ma
"Gus Michel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Besides the source) is there any documentation to reliably predict
> what is meant by date strings which mix [partial] absolute time
> references and relative ones?
Sorry, no. Perhaps some day we can all come to a consensus on what
that sort of string
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:51:50PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> So, people building coreutils will have a choice: apply the
>> c99->c89 patch or install a modern compiler and use that
>> instead of the vendor-supplied one.
>
> There are two issues with C9
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 08:17:37PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:51:50PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> So, people building coreutils will have a choice: apply the
> >> c99->c89 patch or install a modern compiler and use that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes:
> In coreutils 5.93, with _POSIX2_VERSION=0 (and POSIXLY_CORRECT unset),
> touch foo bar
> tail -3 foo bar
> yields the error
> tail: invalid option -- 3
> Both `tail -3 foo' and `head -3 foo bar' are ok.
Well, that's a long story.
7th Edition Unix "
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Substitute the code in the c99.c file with any
> other C99 idiom and the results should be the same.
That hasn't been my experience. For example, many C89 compilers
support "long long" in some form, even though it's a C99 idiom.
Similarly for compound li