Hello, let me send a bashbug report as follows.
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: i686
OS: cygwin
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash.exe' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i686'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='cygwin' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='i686-pc-cygwin'
-DCONF_VENDOR='pc' -D
On 11/4/16 2:02 AM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> Actually, there are more leaks in execute_cmd.c, I'm just going to list them
> here.
Thanks for the pointers, no pun intended.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis''
On 11/4/16 5:41 PM, Martijn Dekker wrote:
> My development with Modernish just exposed the following bug on bash
> 4.4.0(1)-maint, bash-20161028 snapshot, compiled with
> --enable-minimal-config --enable-alias:
>
> $ fn() { false && echo bug || echo ok; }
> $ fn
> ok
> $ fn
> ok
> $ fn | cat
> ok
On 11/4/16 6:30 PM, Martijn Dekker wrote:
> Normal bash:
>
> $ kill -l 141
> PIPE
>
> Bash compiled with --enable-minimal-config --enable-alias:
>
> $ kill -l 141
> SIGPIPE
>
> That SIG prefix shouldn't be there. (Enabling POSIX mode makes no
> difference to the output.)
Bash's minimal configu
On 11/4/16 8:29 AM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> Most of the problematic characters are the ones ending in 0x5c
> (which happens to be backslash in ASCII (or in BIG5-HKSCS when
> standing alone).
There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the glibc locales
really do have a problem for ca
Hi, The following example shows that bash uses xmalloc. But it seems
that using xmalloc is not a good practice. Is it better to use malloc
instead of xmalloc? In this test case, after `./main 100` failed I
still want to run the rest commands. So it sounds like malloc is
better.
http://stackove
