the bugfix was quote "$xblpp" ( it being . or cat ) , no quoting resulted in the said empty command not found err
im a bit disappointed by no dev help about the .c sources, the bug is in the flex thingy okay its big code or so to test in case i can maybe create a version with the .gawk files expanded inside, and it may bug the same, will you test it then ? On Thu, Nov 4, 2021, 01:12 Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev <fxmb...@gmail.com> wrote: > on that other side it would say . not found, which it never did, so no > '' vs hard var def > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021, 01:10 Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev <fxmb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> can it be that i must eval it and it used to work by luck, or something ? >> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021, 01:04 Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev <fxmb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> it doesnt stop by itself.. >>> so i wanted to ask the c and gdb et la folks for help >>> >>> interactive sources its rc on twice or more says on >>> $xblpp <( .. ) >>> in set -x >>> '' /dev/fd/63 >>> for: command not found >>> >>> 1. i dont have "$xblpp" <( .. ) i have $xblpp <( .. ) >>> 2. on first run, also as it uses to work for sourcing, it works, just >>> yet have seen on second tries >>> 3. xblpp= is a upper script part definition, no ifs, and if declare >>> -p'ed it shows the right content ( '.' in case, or cat ) >>> >>> so i figured, if someone is so nice to share some util cmd usage know how >>> >>> cause) ive seen in my last gdb usage ( maybe cause new version or so ) >>> it displayed a well tree of calls and their args, for on segfault >>> i) dunno gdb breakpoints but i think its the right for this and so i >>> wanna use it ( so i ask .. ) >>> >>> a) make gdb breakpoint on somehow that position >>> a.2) show the list of calls, and see why it says empty arg >>> a.3) yea thats the solution, no ? >>> >>> sorry, thanks >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2021, 12:20 Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev <fxmb...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> i checked the file with bvi, i dont see anything >>>> 2a 20 20 63 61 >>>> nothing, its a bash bug somewhere no ? none tried ? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2021, 11:33 Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev <fxmb...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> xble='declare -p xblpp' . xbl >>>>> >>>>> bash: : command not found >>>>> declare -- xblpp="." >>>>> >>>>> this means the $xblpp is at end set to the right, as set on the >>>>> beginning >>>>> but it still says and set -x es '' <( ., ) instead of . or cat <( .. ) >>>>> >>>>> anyone any idea ? >>>>> >>>>> see chet such ( masswise ) i meant with unreported hogging bugs >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 13:53 Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev <fxmb...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> but how why or to fix >>>>>> thers the code, thers the set -x parts >>>>>> >>>>>> ++ xblpp=. >>>>>> .. >>>>>> ++ '' /dev/fd/63 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 13:49 Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev <fxmb...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> i dont have "$var" <( sub ) i have $var <( sub ) >>>>>>> else it makes sense >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 13:42 Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 04:52:24AM +0100, Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > to answer around what was written, i dont have a cat alias >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > but what mr andreas wrote seems much similiar to what i do, >>>>>>>> process sub.. >>>>>>>> > ill check the vars carefully but i dont get it fully >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> unicorn:~$ bash >>>>>>>> unicorn:~$ $xyz <( true ) >>>>>>>> bash: /dev/fd/63: Permission denied >>>>>>>> unicorn:~$ "$xyz" <( true ) >>>>>>>> bash: : command not found >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > but, on your all tries to produce command not found, can u set -x >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> > tries, .. in mine it shows ++++ cat ... then command not found, >>>>>>>> like the >>>>>>>> > cat is gone somehow >>>>>>>> > means does yours produce a + cat ( or cmd ) and then just display >>>>>>>> command >>>>>>>> > not found >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> unicorn:~$ bash >>>>>>>> unicorn:~$ set -x >>>>>>>> unicorn:~$ "$xyz" <( cat /dev/null ) >>>>>>>> + '' /dev/fd/63 >>>>>>>> ++ cat /dev/null >>>>>>>> bash: : command not found >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know what else to tell you. Your customized environment is >>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>> ridiculously convoluted that NOBODY understands it, not even you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Either this is helpful, or not. I don't think you're going to get >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> better results from help-bash or bug-bash than this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, I'm 99% sure this is not a bug in bash -- only in one >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> your files. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
