On 3/22/24 2:40 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
$ diff -u :check[34].log
--- :check3.log 2024-03-21 14:09:48.069094929 -0700
+++ :check4.log 2024-03-21 22:39:51.391869014 -0700
@@ -327,6 +327,10 @@
warning: UNIX versions number signals and schedule processes differently.
warning: If output differ
On 2024-03-21 13:31, Chet Ramey wrote:
Interesting. I can't reproduce this. Using the commit to which your patches
apply, without applying any of them, on a fresh Virtualbox Fedora 39
install, I get consistent `make tests' output every time.
I just now tried the latest devel commit
(b1e7f6803
On 3/19/24 11:48 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 3/18/24 12:41, Chet Ramey wrote:
I'm not sure what you're using, but that was not my experience on
macOS.
I am using Fedora 39 (the current version) on x86-64. That could explain
our differing experiences.
I see several diagnostics (mostly diff out
On 3/18/24 12:41, Chet Ramey wrote:
I'm not sure what you're using, but that was not my experience on
macOS.
I am using Fedora 39 (the current version) on x86-64. That could explain
our differing experiences.
I see several diagnostics (mostly diff output) with "make check" on
Fedora 39. The
On 3/18/24 3:41 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
It should be mostly there in the changes I pushed today, once I made it
through the above.
I appreciate the work you did. Using the ckd_* macros is the right approach.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars l
On 3/18/24 12:36 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 3/18/24 07:40, Chet Ramey wrote:
Thanks for the patches. They introduce a number of regressions, some due
to the different overflow handling; several not. I urge everyone who
submits non-trivial patches to run the test suite (`make tests') on their
patc
On 3/18/24 07:40, Chet Ramey wrote:
Thanks for the patches. They introduce a number of regressions, some due
to the different overflow handling; several not. I urge everyone who
submits non-trivial patches to run the test suite (`make tests') on their
patched versions before sending them in.
I
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 15:40 Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 3/13/24 8:57 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> > Revised patchset attached. The first patch uses the fix you suggested;
> the
> > remaining patches are similar to what I sent earlier, except the last
> one
> > is simplified since it doesn't need to worr
On 3/13/24 8:57 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
Revised patchset attached. The first patch uses the fix you suggested; the
remaining patches are similar to what I sent earlier, except the last one
is simplified since it doesn't need to worry about inline width and
precision when printf will do the chec
On 3/13/24 11:13, Chet Ramey wrote:
Thanks for the report. The most appropriate fix for this particular issue
is to display an error message if printf returns < 0, instead of
suppressing it unless the -v option has been set.
Oh, good point. This simplifies things a bit, though Bash still needs
On 3/12/24 3:49 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
Bash Version: 5.3
Patch Level: 26
Release Status: devel
Description:
Commands like "printf '%1s' ''"
silently ignore width and precision. They should report the
integer overflow before continuing with a lesser wi
11 matches
Mail list logo
