On 6/29/14, 4:47 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Is it possible to make that feature work, by default, w/o the unreliable
> part? I.e. in < <(xxx). Can't the part in (xxx) be forked into a child
> that has it's output fed into the parent?
It doesn't sound like you understand how this construct works.
On 6/26/14, 4:56 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
> On 06/11/2014 07:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 6/11/14, 6:35 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than previous
>>> bash-4 minors.
>>> However, ksh gave a different result all along.
>> This is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/25/14, 3:50 PM, Jared Yanovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> with the following in .inputrc:
>
> set revert-all-at-newline on
>
> a segfault can be produced in bash:
Thanks for the report. This looks like a pointer aliasing problem
resulting in a double
Hello,
I can not help too much on the "bug" side, but I would like to give a
tip regarding the situation you describe.
Often I've the same caveats about how my code will be used in a future
without my control...
If you know for sure, what makes the code unreliable, in this example
the /proc subs
