Re: Likely Bash bug

2021-03-18 Thread Dale R. Worley
Jay via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell writes: > I have no idea what the "ash" the bug report refers to > is (there is an ancient shell of that name, but I cannot imagine any > distribution including that, instead of one of its bug fixed and updated > successors, like say, dash) Well,

Re: Likely Bash bug

2021-03-17 Thread Jay via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
Thanks for your feedback. For reference, other details are as follows: In addition to bash, the distribution includes sh and ash shells/scripts. ▶—— Linux Kernel ——◀ Kernel Release: 4.19.23 Build Date: Tue Feb 19 15:07:58 GMT 2019 Build GCC: 7.3.0 OS Support: GNU/Linux

Re: Likely Bash bug

2021-03-17 Thread David
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 23:05, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:59:42AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > > | Operating system is BionicPup64 8.0. > > That might. More importantly is probably whatever package management > > system it uses. I have no idea what the "ash" the bug rep

Re: Likely Bash bug

2021-03-17 Thread Greg Wooledge
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:59:42AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > | Operating system is BionicPup64 8.0. > > That might. More importantly is probably whatever package management > system it uses. I have no idea what the "ash" the bug report refers to > is (there is an ancient shell of that name,

Re: Likely Bash bug

2021-03-16 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Tue, 16 Mar 2021 22:08:17 -0500 From:Dennis Williamson Message-ID: | In any case this points to larger chunks being more efficient. This is not news, doing reads (or writes) using bigger buffers (more bytes at a time) means less system calls, and compared to

Re: Likely Bash bug

2021-03-16 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:01:24 -0400 From:Jay via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell Message-ID: <86f1f224-2930-ee73-5431-6e130d92f...@aim.com> First, thanks Lawrence for the translation from RTF, I am one of the people he intended to help... The RTF form I

Re: Likely Bash bug

2021-03-16 Thread Dennis Williamson
. On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 10:22 PM Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2021, at 11:08 PM, Dennis Williamson < > dennistwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I've been playing with your optimized code changing the read to grab data > > in chunks like some of the other optimized code does - thus

Re: Likely Bash bug

2021-03-16 Thread Lawrence Velázquez
> On Mar 16, 2021, at 11:08 PM, Dennis Williamson > wrote: > > I've been playing with your optimized code changing the read to grab data > in chunks like some of the other optimized code does - thus extending your > move from by-word to by-line reading to reading a specified larger number > of c

Re: Likely Bash bug

2021-03-16 Thread Dennis Williamson
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:19 PM Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2021, at 6:01 PM, Jay via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne > Again SHell wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I have been using/exploring Linux for ~ 2yrs; have corrupted a couple > > systems more than once either through their

Re: Likely Bash bug

2021-03-16 Thread Lawrence Velázquez
> On Mar 16, 2021, at 6:01 PM, Jay via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again > SHell wrote: > > Hello, > > I have been using/exploring Linux for ~ 2yrs; have corrupted a couple > systems more than once either through their instability with libraries > or just excess stress. > > I don'

Likely Bash bug

2021-03-16 Thread Jay via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
Hello, I have been using/exploring Linux for ~ 2yrs; have corrupted a couple systems more than once either through their instability with libraries or just excess stress. I don't consider current case to be either of the above; see attached. The system is modern Intel computer,