On Thursday, February 29th, 2024 at 19:03, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote:
> On 2/28/24 18:23, Oliver Webb via Toybox wrote:
>
> > I've been looking at some of the other pending commands, And found a getopt
> > implementation from 2017 by AOSP.
> > Looking at the source code, it doesn't seem unclean, nor overly large
> > (about 100 lines).
> > It does use getopt_long_only, a GNU extension of glibc, but musl has that
> > so it will work
> > on both glibc and musl. It is GNU compatible too, all test cases pass (even
> > for TEST_HOST).
>
>
> It's mostly that:
>
> A) I'm not a shell getopt user and haven't put in the focus to come up to
> speed
> on it yet,
>
> B) the shell has a "getopts" (plural) builtin that I need to write, but which
> this doesn't share code with. And LOTS of stuff confuses the two. (There's a
> comment in this source about "BSD getopts", when this is "getopt".) Of COURSE
> the semantics of the two are subtly different.
>
> C) I'd really wanted to get it to use lib/args.c instead of having two
> getopt()
> implementations in toybox (one from lib/ and one pulled in from libc).
>
> Sigh. That said, I've been sitting on this for a long time without doing
> anything about it, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.
>
> The libc version isn't bad, it just bloats the static binary pulling in two
> implementations of approximately the same code. I don't know if switching it
> over to lib/args.c is even possible (the semantics are close, but I'd need one
> to be a strict subset of the other),
I don't know how closely the lib/args.c code is tied into the infrastructure of
toybox,
or if you can use it like how getopt should work by calling it directly with a
struct pointer
(From looking at lib/args.c, it seems like it? Although there is the GLOBALS
stuff which can't
easily be separated from the infrastructure)
The difference between lib/args.c option strings and getopt() option strings is
like the difference
between ERE's and PCRE's, yes they share a common base, but the differences
start to become very
apparent once you move from that base. Evaluating this it seems like we could
either:
1) Change lib/args.c to be a superset of getopt(3), and pry it from the GLOBALS
so we can use it on it's own.
Which is a large amount of effort and will only be used by 2 commands.
2) Have a -t option or something similar to it to parse toybox option strings,
which still requires
prying lib/args.c off the infrastructure, and likely won't be used by anything.
And we still will have
to pull in getopt() from libc.
3) Continue using getopt()
> The existence of the -T option is a damning indictment of the entire gnu
> project. As if we needed more of those. The -s option isn't doing them any
> favors either: PICK ONE. But then again, this is gnu we're talking about:
getopt -s should probably be like cpio -H, ignored and set to the one thing
everyone uses,
and kept in the option string so that we don't error and autoconf doesn't whine.
ideally without using eval which is a horrible nightmare for security.
the 4 options GNU lets you pick from are sh (Bourne Shell?) bash csh and tcsh.
Bash is a superset of sh, and {t,}csh isn't used by anything these days from my
knowledge.
> Rob
- Oliver Webb <aquahobby...@proton.me>
_______________________________________________
Toybox mailing list
Toybox@lists.landley.net
http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
