Hello, Lasse Collin, on 2021-01-11 19:19:09 +0200: > Since xz-devel is subscribers only, I quote your message in full and > also include your test scripts as an attachment for others to see.
Thanks for the notice, I subscribed for convenience.
> I understand from your message that you got a different result. I wonder
> what would explain the difference. Your results are close to what I
> would expect with the "trap '' PIPE" patch. Are you sure you used the
> correctly patched xzcmp for testing? Otherwise I'm clueless what could
> explain the difference in our results.
Oops, I forgot to pop the initial patch off the stack. The
`trap '' PIPE` was still present on top of the script. >_<"
When I rerun these tests without this on top, I see the same
good results as you. This explains that.
> Note that these lines don't do what one might think:
>
> > cat reproducer2.gz | xzcmp - reproducer1.gz
> > cat reproducer2.bz2 | xzcmp - reproducer1.bz2
>
> When reading from stdin, xzcmp/xzdiff assume that the input is either
> in a format that xz understands (.xz or .lzma) or that it is
> uncompressed. So in the above cases the compressed binary
> reproducer2.{gz,bz2} is compared to uncompressed reproducer1 which
> likely isn't what one intended to do.
Good point, actually I had this in the test merely because it
went out of the cartesian product of the possible combinations.
I understand they might not be of very high relevancy.
Have a nice day, :)
--
Étienne Mollier <etienne.moll...@mailoo.org>
Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
Sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
