Neigh!
;)
On 6/3/22 7:06 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 5/29/22 10:54 AM, AA via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
wrote:
The horse is almost dead.
It's in the ground.
On 5/29/22 10:54 AM, AA via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
The horse is almost dead.
It's in the ground.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp
On 5/29/22 7:33 AM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2022, 06:56 AA via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again
SHell, wrote:
Maybe the concern is that any additional calls (such as checking for path
existence) may have unintended consequences [but that] seems unlikely.
Therefore, IMHO it i
On 5/28/22 9:40 PM, Andrew Athan via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again
SHell wrote:
I’ll give it a shot.
Don't worry about it.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.edu
On 5/28/22 4:56 PM, AA via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
I'm sure I'm not the first person to want to have a long philosophical
conversation with the engineer that put the bolt I need to to reach in
order to fix my car, in the place that requires me to disassemble 20 other
Awesome (I made no claims of expertise about the details of the call
semantics). I agree any multi-call scenario would among other things not be
atomic. Though, I’m not sure that’s what you mean by hoodwinked.
That last suggestion is exactly one I also made (simply improve the error text)
and I
(I originally overlooked your mention of a race)
... by the way, I'm curious whether bash is systematically coded to
defend against these kinds of races and whether they are in fact a
material concern?
Notwithstanding, in this particular case, we're talking only about
generating an error mes
On Sun, 29 May 2022, 06:56 AA via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again
SHell, wrote:
> Maybe the concern is that any additional calls (such as checking for path
> existence) may have unintended consequences [but that] seems unlikely.
>
> Therefore, IMHO it is very hard to argue with the fact that
I’ll give it a shot.
A.
> On May 28, 2022, at 4:35 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>
> AA via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
> writes:
>> I.e., something like "I'm not sure what's going on, but your path
>> definitely exists, yet the kernel says otherwise."
>>
>> ... something like fp
AA via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell
writes:
> I.e., something like "I'm not sure what's going on, but your path
> definitely exists, yet the kernel says otherwise."
>
> ... something like fprintf(STDERR,"No such file or directory while
> attempting to execute %s (it exists, but can
I'm sure I'm not the first person to want to have a long philosophical
conversation with the engineer that put the bolt I need to to reach in
order to fix my car, in the place that requires me to disassemble 20
other unrelated things. Nor am I likely to be the first person to want
to reclaim
Chet Ramey writes:
> On 5/26/22 2:27 PM, AA via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
>> When a user attempts to execute an executable that is not
>> recognized as an executable by the system, the generated error is "No such
>> file or directory"
>
> In this case, it's the errno valu
On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:27:32 -0700
AA via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
> Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
> Machine: x86_64
> OS: linux-gnu
> Compiler: gcc
> Compilation CFLAGS: -g -O2
> -fdebug-prefix-map=/build/bash-Smvct5/bash-5.0=.
> -
On 5/26/22 2:27 PM, AA via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
Bash Version: 5.0
Patch Level: 17
Release Status: release
Description:
When a user attempts to execute an executable that is not
recognized as an executable by the system, the generated error is "No such
fi
14 matches
Mail list logo
