A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913 ====================================================================== Reported By: calestyo Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2024)/Issue8 Issue ID: 1913 Category: Shell and Utilities Tags: tc1-2024 Type: Enhancement Request Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: Interpretation Required Name: Christoph Anton Mitterer Organization: User Reference: Shell & Utilities Section: 2.7.5, 2.7.6 Page Number: 2497 Line Number: 81097-81118 Interp Status: Proposed Final Accepted Text: https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913#c7277 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2025-03-12 03:33 UTC Last Modified: 2025-10-28 11:59 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: clarify/define the meaning of n<&n and m>&m redirections ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0007295) geoffclare (manager) - 2025-10-28 11:59 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913#c7295 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913#c7291 > Currently, in multiple shells, even the non-close-on-exec shells, 8<&8 is not a no op if fd 8 was closed: it results in an error exactly as 0<&8 would. By my reading of the proposed wording, in shells that do not set close-on-exec, this would be required to be silently accepted Your reading is wrong. Taking the stated conditions at the start of each paragraph in the new text for 2.7.5 in turn: "If word consists of one or more decimal digits which evaluate to a value not equal to n" is not satisfied because word is equal to n. "If word and n evaluate to the same open file descriptor" is not satisfied because n is not open. "If word evaluates to '-'" is not satisfied. That just leaves "If word evaluates to something else, the behavior is unspecified.". So the behaviour is unspecified. Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2025-03-12 03:33 calestyo New Issue 2025-03-12 07:00 larryv Note Added: 0007111 2025-03-13 02:41 calestyo Note Added: 0007112 2025-03-13 16:12 geoffclare Note Added: 0007115 2025-03-13 17:48 calestyo Note Added: 0007117 2025-03-13 20:20 larryv Note Added: 0007119 2025-03-13 20:43 larryv Note Added: 0007120 2025-03-14 09:44 geoffclare Note Edited: 0007115 2025-03-18 12:30 geoffclare Note Added: 0007125 2025-03-20 14:49 geoffclare Note Edited: 0007115 2025-09-25 11:34 geoffclare Note Added: 0007277 2025-10-23 15:34 geoffclare Note Edited: 0007277 2025-10-23 15:36 geoffclare Note Edited: 0007277 2025-10-23 15:37 geoffclare Status New => Interpretation Required 2025-10-23 15:37 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2025-10-23 15:37 geoffclare Interp Status => Pending 2025-10-23 15:37 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913#c7277 2025-10-23 15:38 geoffclare Tag Attached: tc1-2024 2025-10-23 15:52 ajosey Interp Status Pending => Proposed 2025-10-23 15:52 ajosey Note Added: 0007289 2025-10-23 16:46 hvd Note Added: 0007291 2025-10-23 21:17 stephane Note Added: 0007292 2025-10-23 21:24 stephane Note Added: 0007293 2025-10-25 18:47 hvd Note Added: 0007294 2025-10-28 11:59 geoffclare Note Added: 0007295 ======================================================================
