> Brian Somers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I looked at your patches and immediately thought ``these patches 
> > can't be right'' as I was expecting it to deal with things such as 
> > 
> >   xargs -I [] echo args are [], duplicated are []
> It deals with it.  It conveniently ignores the second '[]' :-).
> Seriosly though, what do you expect it to do in this case?  It can
> either read some more from stdin, or use the same input it used for
> the first case of '[]'.  I also can't think of a case when either one
> of these would be useful.

I can't think of a case either :*]

> I guess the only reason we would want this is if SUSv2 defines it, but
> even that may not matter since we probably won't support the silly
> '-i[nospace]' semantic (other than being silly, I can't think of how
> to implement it without writing a custom getopt() facility).

Absolutely - we wanna avoid that sort of mucking about.

> > I'm also dubious about the patches working for large volumes on 
> > standard input.  At this point I scrapped the email I was composing 
> > 'cos I didn't have time to look into it further :-/
> > 
> > I think it's important to test any patches with a large number of 
> > large path names as input - so that ARG_MAX is reached before the 
> > 5000 argument limit and we can see that we don't end up getting E2BIG 
> > because of an accidental overflow/miscalculation.
> Any advice on testing this (you did write rev. 1.9 of xargs.1, after
> all)?  I created a file with 4500 words like this:
>       /this/is/a/very/long/path/name/because/I/am/testing/some/posix/limit/10
> which ended up being 330 kB.  It ran the `utility' multiple times like
> I expected it to.  That said, I don't know what kind of failure mode
> to expect.  I.e., if the patch is wrong, should it have failed with
> something like, "xargs: exec: argument list too long", or would it
> just produce incorrect output (which I didn't really check for)?

Yes, I was expecting it to fail with E2BIG.  Sorry for doubting your 
patches - they work as advertised from the looks of it !  Nice one.

> Thanks,

Thank you !

>                                       Dima Dorfman
>                                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                        <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
      <http://www.Awfulhak.org>                   <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to