John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> Tim Kientzle wrote this message on Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:51 -0700:
> > Why do exec-ed processes inherit the children of the former
> > process, anyway? That doesn't entirely sound right to me.
> > Is that behavior mandated by some standard? If not, this
> > could argua
Tim Kientzle wrote this message on Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:51 -0700:
[...]
> >Say the shell you run the above command is 10. It will fork to create
> >a shell to run the commands in the outter parens. Call this 11. 11's
> >job is to run: (echo 2; echo 3) | ./xargs -I% echo +%
> >11 will fork/e
Tim J. Robbins wrote this message on Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 19:20 +1000:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 12:41:51AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> [...]
> > So, now the question is, do we fix xargs to deal with unexpected
> > children? Or fix the shells in question? (tcsh and zsh seem to suffer
> >
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
ok, with some magic ktrace work, I have come up with an more complete
answer to the riddle. It's how the shell exec's the processes. The
bare cause can be demo'd by:
( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | ./xargs -I% echo + % )
Say the shell you run the above command is 10. It will fo
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> So, now the question is, do we fix xargs to deal with unexpected
> children? Or fix the shells in question? (tcsh and zsh seem to suffer
> this problem)
>
> To me, fixing xargs is correct since it prevents another possible
> future abusers of this "feature".
Fixing the
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 12:41:51AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
[...]
> So, now the question is, do we fix xargs to deal with unexpected
> children? Or fix the shells in question? (tcsh and zsh seem to suffer
> this problem)
>
> To me, fixing xargs is correct since it prevents another possibl
John-Mark Gurney wrote this message on Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 23:04 -0700:
> Ok, I seem to have found out that we are reaping a child that we don't
> know about. slightly modified xargs produces this:
ok, with some magic ktrace work, I have come up with an more complete
answer to the riddle. It's
Juli Mallett wrote this message on Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 00:15 -0500:
> * Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-06-24 ]
> [ w.r.t. Re: tcsh being dodgy, or pipe code ishoos? ]
> > * Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-06-24 ]
> > > Hmmm... Th
* Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-06-24 ]
[ w.r.t. Re: tcsh being dodgy, or pipe code ishoos? ]
> * Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-06-24 ]
> > Hmmm... This looks like xargs isn't waiting for the subcommand
> > to exit. This lo
* Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-06-24 ]
[ w.r.t. Re: tcsh being dodgy, or pipe code ishoos? ]
> Artem 'Zazoobr' Ignatjev wrote:
> > Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> >>Anyone with insight into this?
> >>
> >>([EMAIL PR
Tim Kientzle wrote this message on Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 21:19 -0700:
> Artem 'Zazoobr' Ignatjev wrote:
> >Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> >>Anyone with insight into this?
> >>
> >>([EMAIL PROTECTED]:~)39% ( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I%
> >>echo + % ) )
> >>1
> >>+ 2
> >>+ 3
> >>([EMAIL PRO
Artem 'Zazoobr' Ignatjev wrote:
Juli Mallett wrote:
Anyone with insight into this?
([EMAIL PROTECTED]:~)39% ( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% echo + % ) )
1
+ 2
+ 3
([EMAIL PROTECTED]:~)40% ( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% echo + % ) ) |
cat
1
+ +2
3
last cat is not necess
jmallett> Anyone with insight into this?
"Me Too" with zsh 4.0.6 on 5-current as of early June/2003.
-- -
Makoto `MAR' Matsushita
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 18:54:11 -0500, Juli Mallett wrote:
> stdout. Where does stderr come into it? Yes I know about TTY races
Forget about stderr, it looks like fork race somewhere. Minimal example
will be
( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% echo + % )
which outputs
+ + 3
2
in rare cases.
Juli Mallett wrote:
> Anyone with insight into this?
>
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]:~)39% ( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% echo + % ) )
> 1
> + 2
> + 3
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]:~)40% ( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% echo + % ) ) |
> cat
> 1
> + +2
> 3
last cat is not necessary...
And
* Andrey Chernov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-06-24 ]
[ w.r.t. Re: tcsh being dodgy, or pipe code ishoos? ]
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 18:35:15 -0500, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > Anyone with insight into this?
> >
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]:~)39% ( echo 1 ; ( ( e
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 18:35:15 -0500, Juli Mallett wrote:
> Anyone with insight into this?
>
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]:~)39% ( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% echo + % ) )
> 1
> + 2
> + 3
Loks like stdout/stderr mix, but I not check the code, so just raw guess.
__
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 04:10:55PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Can anyone else reproduce this in tcsh?
>
> rpcgen -s `perl -e 'print "a"x5'`
> Word too long.
I reported this to the tcsh people about 18 months ago, but I
don't think it was ever fixed.
David.
To Unsubscribe: send m
On 06-Oct-2002 (23:10:55/GMT) Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Can anyone else reproduce this in tcsh?
> rpcgen -s `perl -e 'print "a"x5'`
> Word too long.
Mee too mail. Using {50,500,5000} works, hang only with 5
(not tested with others numbers). Doing:
# echo {your_command}
print only "word to
Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
>> Can anyone else reproduce this in tcsh?
>
>
> Yup. My -CURRENT here is two weeks old.
... reproducible in -STABLE, too.
Regards,
--
Michael Nottebrock
"And the reasons? There are no reasons."
msg44136/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP sig
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 01:10, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Can anyone else reproduce this in tcsh?
>
> rpcgen -s `perl -e 'print "a"x5'`
> Word too long.
>
> And then tcsh will hang in a state unresponsive to signals.
>
> Kris
>
Hangs here, too. (this is stable!)
FreeBSD klamath.ankon.homeip.ne
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Can anyone else reproduce this in tcsh?
Yup. My -CURRENT here is two weeks old.
--
Michael Nottebrock
| After years of using email, I'm still to dumb to hit Reply-All |
msg44132/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 2002-05-19 20:34, Riccardo Torrini wrote:
> On 19-May-2002 (18:27:40/GMT) Riccardo Torrini wrote:
>
> > I have "set implicitcd". But it would be honoured only when a
> > directory is specified on a line itself, not after a pipe (IMHO).
>
> Or (even better), when a directory is followed by a "/
On 19-May-2002 (18:27:40/GMT) Riccardo Torrini wrote:
> I have "set implicitcd". But it would be honoured only when a
> directory is specified on a line itself, not after a pipe (IMHO).
Or (even better), when a directory is followed by a "/" ?
Riccardo.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PR
On 19-May-2002 (18:12:00/GMT) Mark Peek wrote:
>>If exists a directory named "sort" tcsh chdir to that dir instead of
>>executing sort present in path (and no, I have no "." anywere in path)
>>And it also happen with non existent commands:
>># pwd
>>/usr/src/contrib
>># find . -name Makefile | l
At 6:14 PM +0200 5/19/02, Riccardo Torrini wrote:
>If exists a directory named "sort" tcsh chdir to that dir instead of
>executing sort present in path (and no, I have no "." anywere in path)
>
># pwd
>/usr/src/contrib
># find . -name Makefile | sort
># pwd
>/usr/src/contrib/sort
># cd ..
># find
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 06:14:09PM +0200, Riccardo Torrini wrote:
> If exists a directory named "sort" tcsh chdir to that dir instead of
> executing sort present in path (and no, I have no "." anywere in path)
>
You probably have the 'implicitcd' option on.
--
Jordan DeLong
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 14, 11:24pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Andrey A. Chernov") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: tcsh 6.10.00 echo;echo;echo; bug with fix
With the new information about solaris having fixed this, I've decided
against keeping compatibility and just applying the fix you proposed.
christos
|
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:54:32 -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Yeah, that is a good idea. I think that I'll add an echo_style "bsdbug",
> and leave the default alone.
Even if we left old default in place (which I personally not like), old
code have signal handler bug, we can't just "return" fr
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 18:41:37 +0100, Daniel Rock wrote:
> David Malone schrieb:
> >
> > > echo is more like as external command, even in its internal form it
> > > tends to be compatible even with SysV-isms. What non-BSD grown (i.e. SysV)
> > > csh echo prints?
> >
> > Solaris, AIX and HPUX a
David Malone schrieb:
>
> > echo is more like as external command, even in its internal form it
> > tends to be compatible even with SysV-isms. What non-BSD grown (i.e. SysV)
> > csh echo prints?
>
> Solaris, AIX and HPUX all print nothing. I guess all csh versions
> are likely to be BSD dervied
I agree with Andrey -- although this has the possibility of breaking
old scripts that expect no output from echoing an empty variable.
Since the DEC/OSF system update script only works with their ancient
/bin/sh (and not with the XPG4 sh) I wouldn't be surprised to find
such scripts out there...
On Mar 14, 2:41pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Malone) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: tcsh 6.10.00 echo;echo;echo; bug with fix
| > echo is more like as external command, even in its internal form it
| > tends to be compatible even with SysV-isms. What non-BSD grown (i.e. SysV)
| > csh ec
> echo is more like as external command, even in its internal form it
> tends to be compatible even with SysV-isms. What non-BSD grown (i.e. SysV)
> csh echo prints?
Solaris, AIX and HPUX all print nothing. I guess all csh versions
are likely to be BSD dervied, so there is likely to be a consista
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 14:10:06 +, David Malone wrote:
> Will it change what happens if you do:
>
> set null=""
> echo $null
>
> (this produces nothing in "traditional" tcsh and csh)?
It will change.
> I guess we should leave it up to the tcsh folks. There are other
> internal
> Since internal 'echo' does nothing, it _not_ used in any old csh scripts,
> while 'echo ""' does the same thing in both old and new variants, so old
> scripts will works in the same way.
Will it change what happens if you do:
set null=""
echo $null
(this produces nothing in "t
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 15:46:39 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:41:09 +, David Malone wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:52:49AM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks so much! I wonder how come this bug remained unnoticed for such
> > > a long time!
>
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:41:09 +, David Malone wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:52:49AM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> > Thanks so much! I wonder how come this bug remained unnoticed for such
> > a long time!
>
> AFAIK, this isn't a bug. It's what csh has always done. (It's what
> IB
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:52:49AM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Thanks so much! I wonder how come this bug remained unnoticed for such
> a long time!
AFAIK, this isn't a bug. It's what csh has always done. (It's what
IBM and Sun's csh do anyway...) To echo a newline in csh you do
'echo ""'.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
: Who is our tcsh maintainer now?
I am.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 01:26:47PM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> Who is our tcsh maintainer now?
On the FreeBSD end it is imp.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" i
On Mar 13, 1:19pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Andrey A. Chernov") wrote:
-- Subject: tcsh 6.10.00 echo;echo;echo; bug with fix
Thanks so much! I wonder how come this bug remained unnoticed for such
a long time!
christos
| echo;echo;echo; must output 3 new lines but currently not due to obvious
| bug:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:41:26 +0100, Johan Karlsson wrote:
> At Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:26:47 +0300, "Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> > Who is our tcsh maintainer now?
>
> Don't know but tcsh is contibified and from
> /usr/src/contrib/tcsh/README
>
> 12) PLEASE send any bug reports (and fixes), code
At Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:26:47 +0300, "Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> Who is our tcsh maintainer now?
Don't know but tcsh is contibified and from
/usr/src/contrib/tcsh/README
12) PLEASE send any bug reports (and fixes), code for new features,
comments, questions, etc. (even flames) to:
Who is our tcsh maintainer now?
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 13:19:44 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> echo;echo;echo; must output 3 new lines but currently not due to obvious
> bug:
>
> --- sh.func.c.bak Fri Dec 1 01:18:27 2000
> +++ sh.func.c Tue Mar 13 13:04:54 2001
> @@ -1147,7 +1147,7 @@
>
This has been applied.
+ Kim
| From:"Andrey A. Chernov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Date:Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:36:12 +0400
|
| --- tc.prompt.c.bak Thu Apr 20 11:47:23 2000
| +++ tc.prompt.c Fri Apr 21 08:31:17 2000
| @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@
| fmthist('R', info, (char *) (cz
David O'Brien writes:
| On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 04:04:00PM -0700, Doug Ambrisko wrote:
| > With -current as of the weekend. I now have tcsh as the root shell.
| > I noticed something "strange", my history only displays the time, for example
|
| Known problem. Will be fixed in a few days.
Thank
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 04:04:00PM -0700, Doug Ambrisko wrote:
> With -current as of the weekend. I now have tcsh as the root shell.
> I noticed something "strange", my history only displays the time, for example
Known problem. Will be fixed in a few days.
--
-- David([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Apr 21, 8:36am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Andrey A. Chernov") wrote:
-- Subject: tcsh history and month bugfix: tc.prompt.c v3.38
thanks, I am redoing the code for tc.prompt.c anyway because it is wrong!
christos
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" i
49 matches
Mail list logo
