Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/build/bash-2bxm7h/bash-5.0=.
-fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wall
-Wno-parentheses -Wno-format-security
uname output: Linux medium 4.19.0-9-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.118-2 (2020-04
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 8:50 AM felix wrote:
>
>_out=$(date -d "$_string" +%s)
> many time in same script, I run something like:
>
> _fifo=$(mktemp -u /tmp/fifo-)
> mkfifo $_fifo
> exec 9> >(exec stdbuf -o0 date -f - +%s >$_fifo 2>&1)
> exec 8<$_fifo
> rm $_fifo
>
>
On 6/28/20 11:55 AM, Dennis Williamson wrote:
> How is running your
>
> echo >&9 $_string
> read -t 1 -u 8 _out
>
> many times better than running your
>
>_out=$(date -d "$_string" +%s)
>
> many times?
>
> Why don't you just use a function?
>
> date_to_epoch () {
> dat
28 Haziran 2020 Pazar tarihinde felix yazdı:
> Machine: x86_64
> OS: linux-gnu
> Compiler: gcc
> Compilation CFLAGS: -g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/build/bash-2bxm7h/bash-5.0=.
> -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wall
> -Wno-parentheses -Wno-format-security
> uname output: Li
In order to prevent ressource eating, once `date -f - +%s` runned as
background, date_to_epoch will become:
$ exec 8<> <(:)
$ exec 9> >(exec stdbuf -o0 date -f - +%s >&8 2>&8)
$ date_to_epoch() {
echo >&9 ${@:2}
read -t 1 -u 8 ${1:-answeredEpoch}
}
$ date_to_epoch _out 2009-02-13 23:31:3
I totally agree, but this work from at least bash-3.2 upto last version!
But if a bug, a feature request:
exec 8< 9> <>(date -f - +%s)
( ..or, but I don't imagine how this could be implemanted:
exec 8<> <>(date -f - +%s)
:-p )
...
AND even:
Same `-u` option for `read -u $FD` available for
When debugging a shell script, a useful command is:
bash -x script-name
The deficiency of this is that "-x" causes all simple commands in your
startup files to be echoed as they are executed, and often this output
is a lot longer than the output from the commands in the script.
For a long ti
On 6/28/20 3:19 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> When debugging a shell script, a useful command is:
>
> bash -x script-name
>
> The deficiency of this is that "-x" causes all simple commands in your
> startup files to be echoed as they are executed, and often this output
> is a lot longer than th
Date:Sun, 28 Jun 2020 12:06:10 -0400
From:Eli Schwartz
Message-ID:
| You COMPLETELY failed to even read the reporter's message, which
| specifically stated "In order to reduce forks and make some tasks a lot
| quicker [...]"
I noticed that explanation, but li
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM felix wrote:
> There is maybe something to document or even create a new feature
> about open2 and open3...
>
Maybe "coproc" is already the feature you need (limited to only 1 though)?
On 6/28/20 4:21 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> I noticed that explanation, but like Dennis, I fail to see how the
> complicated version does any more than pretend there are less forks
> happening. Was the speed of this actually measured, and if so, where
> are the comparative results?
Sure, and that ca
Eli Schwartz writes:
> Why not just run bash -x script-name without the bash -l option and
> without $BASH_ENV set?
>
> The first is implicitly true based on your stated command line. The
> second doesn't seem like a high bar to set, and it's not exactly default
> behavior... if you really do need
12 matches
Mail list logo
