Re: [sr #108491] Is `set -o histexpand` meant to trump `set -o posix`? [eg, echo "#!/"] (Because it does.)

So having done some more playing around with this, I've found that when bash is configured and compiled with '--enable-strict-posix-default', this doesn't occur. I see this is documented in the change log for 4.3alpha, as: k. When compiled for strict Posix conformance, history expansion is

Re: unsigned int for loop in bash

Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > I am getting a weird behavior in bash. Would it be possible for the > next release of bash to not get a SIGSEV ? > for i in {0..4294967295}; do > echo $i > done That is one of those expressions that I see and my eyes go *WIDE* with shock! The {X..Y} expression is gene

unsigned int for loop in bash

As reported at: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21500367/bash-for-loop-with-unsigned-integer I am getting a weird behavior in bash. Would it be possible for the next release of bash to not get a SIGSEV ? Steps: #!/bin/bash for i in {0..4294967295}; do echo $i done Thanks, -- Mathieu

4.3-rc2: fix crash in rl_do_undo

Type M-. (insert-last-argument) twice -> crash. Andreas. diff --git a/lib/readline/undo.c b/lib/readline/undo.c index a3d4044..f30ccf3 100644 --- a/lib/readline/undo.c +++ b/lib/readline/undo.c @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ rl_do_undo () /* If we are editing a history entry, make sure the change is