On 7/30/19 1:08 PM, Morgan McClure wrote:
> ./a.out foo > /dev/null 2&>1; echo $?
> returns 3 NOT as expected
You probably meant to use 2>&1.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:35 AM Morgan McClure
wrote:
(...)
> ./a.out foo > /dev/null 2&>1; echo $?
> returns 3 NOT as expected
Are you 100% certain the `2&>1` redirection means what you think it
means? (hint: I recommend reading the "Redirecting Standard Output and
Standard Error" section o
So I think I've discovered a bug with the way that bash handles passing
argc and argv to programs in the presence of multiple redirects.
For this testing, my C source file is just the following:
int main(int argc, char * argv[]) {
return argc;
}
For the purposes of testing, I comment out one
Date:Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:46:38 -0700
From:L A Walsh
Message-ID: <5d3ff5de.50...@tlinx.org>
| It isn't a judgment call to list only the options it supports on a given
| system. I'd think that would be clear.
That's an opinion, and that makes it something which ev
On 2019/07/29 22:49, k...@munnari.oz.au wrote:
> | I didn't see this come back from the list and it was sent
> | 45 minutes ago (vs. other emails of mine that have come
> | back in under a minute).
> | Did anyone else see it?
>
> Yes. The original appeared (before this repeat). Avoid
On 2019/07/29 22:09, Robert Elz wrote:
> Whether bash ought limit its usage output option list to those
> options supported on the system it is running on, or whether it
> is better to list everything it knows about (either my, or your,
> system might have more limits bash knows nothing about)
ps: if you want to find out which ulimit options
are supported on your system, use (parse) the output
of ulimit -a
Modified script that does that appended .. still
bash specific, as the output format of ulimit -a is
also not specified ... in fact, giving any options to
ulimit at all, aside from -f
