Eduardo Bustamante () wrote:
>
> (...)
> What if instead of
> complaining you do something about it, like, fixing the problem (send
> a patch)?
>
You are assuming that if I take a look at the c code I will be able to read
it,
then understand it, and then make meaningful, or even reasonable cha
On 12/25/18 3:01 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
> No, that is not the intent. I merely failed to correctly convey the
> perception that others have of your code:
>
> https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/487260/265604
That is, of course, their privilege.
> And, having failed, I am trying again.
>
> But, probab
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 12:01 PM Bize Ma wrote:
(...)
> But, probably, I should just not inform you of what others think given your
> upfront rejection to any (constructive) criticism.
(..)
> Do as you wish, we will still be able to form our own opinion about buggy
> code.
This is not constructiv
Chet Ramey () wrote:
> On 12/19/18 10:15 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
>
> Ah, now we're moving the goalposts.
No, that is not the intent. I merely failed to correctly convey the
perception that others have of your code:
https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/487260/265604
And, having failed, I am trying aga
On 12/19/18 10:15 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
> Chet Ramey (mailto:chet.ra...@case.edu>>) wrote:
>
> And yet, when you look at the source, the signal handlers are installed
> with SA_RESTART. For example,
>
>
>
> # if defined (SIGWINCH)
> act.sa_flags = (sig == SIGWINCH) ? SA_RESTART
Chet Ramey () wrote:
> And yet, when you look at the source, the signal handlers are installed
> with SA_RESTART. For example,
>
> # if defined (SIGWINCH)
> act.sa_flags = (sig == SIGWINCH) ? SA_RESTART : 0;
> # else
> act.sa_flags = 0;
> # endif /* SIGWINCH */
>
> in lib/readline/signals
On 12/18/18 8:06 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
> In here:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2018-01/msg00032.html
>
>
> You promised:
>
> The
> next version of bash will install its SIGWINCH handler with SA_RESTART.
>
>
>
> Yet:
> Still a bug in bash version 5
And yet, when you look at the
In here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2018-01/msg00032.html
You promised:
The
next version of bash will install its SIGWINCH handler with SA_RESTART.
Yet:
Still a bug in bash version 5
On 12/9/18 12:45 PM, Pusillanimous Pussyfooter wrote:
>> There are a couple of signals for which this is the appropriate behavior.
>> The right fix is to install handlers with the SA_RESTART flag set. The
>> next version of bash will install its SIGWINCH handler with SA_RESTART.
>
> Here is a triv
> There are a couple of signals for which this is the appropriate behavior.
> The right fix is to install handlers with the SA_RESTART flag set. The
> next version of bash will install its SIGWINCH handler with SA_RESTART.
Here is a trivial patch doing just that, though IMHO it would be much bette
On 1/12/18 12:05 PM, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> Bash Version: 4.4
> Patch Level: 12
> Release Status: release
>
> Description:
> If during an 'echo' or 'printf', the write() system call returns an
> EINTR error, the write() call is not retried.
> This can can happen when a syst
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='x86_64'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='unknown' -DLOCALEDIR='/opt/bash-4.4.12
12 matches
Mail list logo
