On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:35:43PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
| On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
| >> >Additionally, i very much prefer to have as little as possible
| >> >differecnes between expr(1) and the ksh builtin.
| >>
| >> Ehum, running the risk of looking like a comple
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 03:35:43PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >> Ehum, running the risk of looking like a complete fool I've got to
> >> ask, is there actually a ksh builtin version of expr?
> >>
> >> I did actually double check that prior t
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> >Additionally, i very much prefer to have as little as possible
>> >differecnes between expr(1) and the ksh builtin.
>>
>> Ehum, running the risk of looking like a complete fool I've got to
>> ask, is there actually a ksh builtin version of
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 01:00:04PM +0100, Benny Lofgren wrote:
> On 2011-01-15 07.43, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:22:25PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >>>+ Makes it 64-bit capable on 64-bit architectures by changing relevant
> >>>int:s to long:s.
> >>I think this is a probl
On 2011-01-15 07.43, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:22:25PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
+ Makes it 64-bit capable on 64-bit architectures by changing relevant
int:s to long:s.
I think this is a problem.
I would expect a unix utility of this importance to work exactly the
same o
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:22:25PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > + Makes it 64-bit capable on 64-bit architectures by changing relevant
> > int:s to long:s.
>
> I think this is a problem.
>
> I would expect a unix utility of this importance to work exactly the
> same on all our platforms.
Add
On 2011-01-15 04.23, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Benny Lofgren wrote:
+ Makes it 64-bit capable on 64-bit architectures by changing relevant int:s
to long:s. I often use expr as a quick calculator for example when
partitioning disks and such, and frequently find myself
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Benny Lofgren wrote:
> + Makes it 64-bit capable on 64-bit architectures by changing relevant int:s
> to long:s. I often use expr as a quick calculator for example when
> partitioning disks and such, and frequently find myself up against the 32
> bit signed intege
> + Makes it 64-bit capable on 64-bit architectures by changing relevant
> int:s to long:s.
I think this is a problem.
I would expect a unix utility of this importance to work exactly the
same on all our platforms.
Hi folks,
Here's a diff to expr(1) that does three things I feel make it more useful:
+ Makes it 64-bit capable on 64-bit architectures by changing relevant
int:s to long:s. I often use expr as a quick calculator for example when
partitioning disks and such, and frequently find myself up again
10 matches
Mail list logo