On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 20:40, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 4/17/20 6:37 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> > This happens only because of the cheap way we (and I presume you)
> > implement things - in any rational scheme, it would take the precision
> > chars from the source string, and then quote them.
That,
2020-04-20 10:00 George Jones :
> Thank you. Patch applied and (performance) tested with come tests
> I was working on
> https://github.com/eludom/snippits/tree/master/bash/tests
> bottom line:
Thank you for the measurements.
Also, I am sorry that I disturbed your plan for contributing to B
I'm sorry, there was a bug. This is the fixed patch (v3).
--
Koichi
0001-hashlib-Implement-rehash.v3.patch
Description: Binary data
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:48:44PM +0900, Koichi Murase wrote:
> Also, I am sorry that I disturbed your plan for contributing to Bash.
> I actually initially doubted that the insertion with the current
> implementation is O(N), so I created the test first and then found
> that it is an easy fix rat
On 4/19/20 5:33 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:40:39 -0400
> From:Chet Ramey
> Message-ID: <8c5bdd2c-bc61-a885-6a05-690ef7f51...@case.edu>
>
> | Nobody, including POSIX, is rational, then.
>
> There is no %q in POSIX printf currently, so the issue
Date:Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:03:39 -0400
From:Chet Ramey
Message-ID: <51b585da-b594-740d-1772-3c3a25a89...@case.edu>
| I'm referring to the specification of %b that I quoted in another message,
I didn't see that (and I certainly didn't comment on it wrt rationality).
On 4/20/20 8:49 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:48:44PM +0900, Koichi Murase wrote:
>> Also, I am sorry that I disturbed your plan for contributing to Bash.
>> I actually initially doubted that the insertion with the current
>> implementation is O(N), so I created the test fir
2020-04-20 23:05 Chet Ramey :
> On 4/20/20 8:49 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:48:44PM +0900, Koichi Murase wrote:
> >> Also, I am sorry that I disturbed your plan for contributing to Bash.
> >> I actually initially doubted that the insertion with the current
> >> implement
No problem. Glad you fixed it. It's been a LONG time since I've
actually written C, so probably best if someone current did it.
On the parameters, I suggest you consider exposing the at user level as a
switch or env var. My use case was pathologically large (and would have
been better on, e.
On 4/19/20 3:51 PM, Koichi Murase wrote:
>
> The associative arrays in `hashlib.c' are implemented by hash tables
> as is clear from its name. The main lookup of hash table algorithm is
> done by the following line
>
> bucket = HASH_BUCKET (string, table, hv);
>
> but not by the subsequent l
In this one
https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/bash/manual/bash.html#Shell-Parameter-Expansion
one can read
"Substring indexing is zero-based unless the positional parameters are
used, in which case the indexing starts at 1 by default. If offset is 0,
and the positional parameters are
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fno-plt
-DDEFAULT_PATH_VALUE='/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin'
-DSTANDARD_UTILS_PATH='/usr/bin' -DSYS_BASHRC='/etc/ba
On 4/20/20 11:55 AM, andrej--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again
SHell wrote:
> Bash Version: 5.0
> Patch Level: 16
> Release Status: release
>
> Description:
> Variable existence testing doesn't match variables that are (only) declared.
> Unless the declared variables are redeclared a
On 4/20/20 10:39 AM, Péter Kozics wrote:
> In this one
> https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/bash/manual/bash.html#Shell-Parameter-Expansion
>
>
>
> one can read
> "Substring indexing is zero-based unless the positional parameters are
> used, in which case the indexing starts at 1 by de
In the latest devel push:
$ make -C examples/loadables/
make: Entering directory '/home/eschwartz/git/bash/examples/loadables'
gcc -fPIC -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSHELL -g -O2 -Wno-parentheses
-Wno-format-security -I. -I.. -I../.. -I../../lib -I../../builtins -I.
-I../../include -I/home/eschwartz/git/ba
On 4/20/20 4:02 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> In the latest devel push:
>
> $ make -C examples/loadables/
> make: Entering directory '/home/eschwartz/git/bash/examples/loadables'
> gcc -fPIC -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSHELL -g -O2 -Wno-parentheses
> -Wno-format-security -I. -I.. -I../.. -I../../lib -I../../b
On 4/20/20 11:16 AM, George Jones wrote:
> No problem. Glad you fixed it. It's been a LONG time since I've
> actually written C, so probably best if someone current did it.
>
> On the parameters, I suggest you consider exposing the at user level as a
> switch or env var. My use case was path
On 4/20/20 1:15 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've uncovered a very unusual race condition when using process
> substitution and developed as minimal a reproducer as I could create:
What version of bash are you using?
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chauce
On 4/20/20, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 4/20/20 1:15 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've uncovered a very unusual race condition when using process
>> substitution and developed as minimal a reproducer as I could create:
>
> What version of bash are you using?
>
5.0.016
No real opinion on syntax.
Using something existing:
declare -A foo[SIZE]
seems sensible, especially if there was no semantic meaning (I'm not a fan
of syntax without semantics clutter).
Big thing is that the new stuff for fringe new pathologic use cases (mine)
should not have negative
Here's a simpler reproducer:
set -e
a="my name is a"
b="my name is b"
pretty() { echo -e "\x1b[0m"; }
doit() { pretty; "$@"; }
while true; do
doit cat <(echo "$a") <(echo "$b")
done
This one will reproduce immediately:
#!/bin/bash
set -e
a="my name is a"
b="my name is b"
sleep() { read -t "$1" -N 1 || true; }
doit() { sleep 0.1; "$@"; }
while true; do
doit cat <(echo "$a") <(echo "$b")
done
On 4/20/20 5:01 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On 4/20/20, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 4/20/20 1:15 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've uncovered a very unusual race condition when using process
>>> substitution and developed as minimal a reproducer as I could create:
>>
>> What versio
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 05:12:28PM -0400, George Jones wrote:
> No real opinion on syntax.
>
> Using something existing:
>
> declare -A foo[SIZE]
>
> seems sensible, especially if there was no semantic meaning (I'm not a fan
> of syntax without semantics clutter).
That's pretty C-like,
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:49 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 4/20/20 5:01 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On 4/20/20, Chet Ramey wrote:
> >> On 4/20/20 1:15 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I've uncovered a very unusual race condition when using process
> >>> substitution and dev
On 4/20/20 5:56 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:49 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>>
>> On 4/20/20 5:01 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>>> On 4/20/20, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 4/20/20 1:15 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've uncovered a very unusual race condi
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:58 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
> OK, good. It was either that or closing the fd after reaping the child
> process -- I couldn't tell 100% from the system call trace.
The latter is an interesting possibility. I assume SIGCHLD comes in
through a signal handler, so it's asynchrono
On 4/20/20 6:02 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> It seems like process substitution fifo lifetime is really tricky. You
> can't really reference track, since the path is just a string that
> could be manipulated. So how do you know when it's safe to clean up
> that fd and that nobody is using it?
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -pipe -march=native -Wno-trigraphs -fno-schedule-insns2
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -mtune=native -fomit-frame-pointer -O2
-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -DQT_FORCE_ASSERTS
Is this the proper place to make suggestions for improving Bash?
Dale
Were you planning on committing this to Savannah?
31 matches
Mail list logo
