Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001156]: Should fflush (NULL) flush streams not backed by files?
| Unless I've misread something, this change seems to conflict with the | interpretation given for http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=626. This all tells me two things (reinforces one) ... 1) It is almost impossible to search Mantis to discover if an issue has already been addressed - so much so that almost no-one bothers (it takes someone actually remembering that there was an old issue, and doing a lot of work to find it). 2) The resolution of 626 was (in one sense) incorrect, in that even though with sufficient study, one may come to the conclusion that it did, the standard is obviously not "clear" as two different bug reports, 5 years apart, have raised the exact same question. Whatever the eventual decision is this time - to stick with the 1156 result (overriding 626) or to revert to 626's interpretation, the wording in the description of XSH 3(fflush) clearly needs something added to it (which could be the proposed resolution of 1156) to make it really be clear what is intended. kre
[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001156]: Should fflush (NULL) flush streams not backed by files?
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 626. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1156 == Reported By:Florian Weimer Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1156 Category: System Interfaces Type: Clarification Requested Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: Resolved Name: Florian Weimer Organization: Red Hat User Reference: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21735 Section:fflush Page Number:859 Line Number:28961 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text:http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1156#c4203 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: == Date Submitted: 2017-07-20 08:13 UTC Last Modified: 2019-01-11 20:11 UTC == Summary:Should fflush (NULL) flush streams not backed by files? == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 626 Unclear whether fflush(0) and/or exit()... == Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer New Issue 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer Name => Florian Weimer 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer Organization => Red Hat 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer User Reference=> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21735 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer Section => fflush 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer Page Number => unknown 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer Line Number => unknown 2017-10-30 16:34 Florian Weimer Issue Monitored: Florian Weimer 2019-01-10 16:18 geoffclare Note Added: 0004203 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Page Number unknown => 859 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Line Number unknown => 28961 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Interp Status => --- 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1156#c4203 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Status New => Resolved 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Tag Attached: tc3-2008 2019-01-11 20:11 osoong Note Added: 0004206 2019-01-11 23:03 eblake Relationship added related to 626 ==
[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000626]: Unclear whether fflush(0) and/or exit() affect memory streams
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001156. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=626 == Reported By:dalias Assigned To:ajosey == Project:1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 Issue ID: 626 Category: System Interfaces Type: Clarification Requested Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: Resolved Name: Rich Felker Organization: musl libc User Reference: Section:fflush, exit Page Number:844 Line Number:28021 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text:see http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=626#c1418 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: == Date Submitted: 2012-10-25 05:39 UTC Last Modified: 2019-01-11 23:03 UTC == Summary:Unclear whether fflush(0) and/or exit() affect memory streams == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 611 Interaction of exit with stdio stream l... related to 0001156 Should fflush (NULL) flush streams not ... == Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2012-10-25 05:39 dalias New Issue 2012-10-25 05:39 dalias Status New => Under Review 2012-10-25 05:39 dalias Assigned To => ajosey 2012-10-25 05:39 dalias Name => Rich Felker 2012-10-25 05:39 dalias Organization => musl libc 2012-10-25 05:39 dalias Section => fflush, exit 2012-10-25 05:39 dalias Page Number => unknown 2012-10-25 05:39 dalias Line Number => unknown 2012-11-07 16:41 eblake Relationship added related to 611 2012-11-07 17:03 eblake Note Added: 0001418 2012-11-07 17:04 eblake Page Number unknown => 844 2012-11-07 17:04 eblake Line Number unknown => 28021 2012-11-07 17:04 eblake Interp Status => --- 2012-11-07 17:04 eblake Final Accepted Text => see http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=626#c1418 2012-11-07 17:04 eblake Status Under Review => Resolved 2012-11-07 17:04 eblake Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2012-11-07 17:06 eblake Note Edited: 0001418 2012-11-07 17:12 eblake Note Edited: 0001418 2012-11-07 17:15 eblake Note Edited: 0001418 2012-11-07 17:22 geoffclare Tag Attached: tc2-2008 2019-01-11 19:37 osoong Issue Monitored: osoong 2019-01-11 19:38 osoong Issue End Monitor: osoong 2019-01-11 23:03 eblake Relationship added related to 0001156 ==
[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001156]: Should fflush (NULL) flush streams not backed by files?
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1156 == Reported By:Florian Weimer Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1156 Category: System Interfaces Type: Clarification Requested Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: Resolved Name: Florian Weimer Organization: Red Hat User Reference: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21735 Section:fflush Page Number:859 Line Number:28961 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text:http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1156#c4203 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: == Date Submitted: 2017-07-20 08:13 UTC Last Modified: 2019-01-11 20:11 UTC == Summary:Should fflush (NULL) flush streams not backed by files? == -- (0004206) osoong (reporter) - 2019-01-11 20:11 http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1156#c4206 -- Unless I've misread something, this change seems to conflict with the interpretation given for http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=626. Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer New Issue 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer Name => Florian Weimer 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer Organization => Red Hat 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer User Reference=> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21735 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer Section => fflush 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer Page Number => unknown 2017-07-20 08:13 Florian Weimer Line Number => unknown 2017-10-30 16:34 Florian Weimer Issue Monitored: Florian Weimer 2019-01-10 16:18 geoffclare Note Added: 0004203 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Page Number unknown => 859 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Line Number unknown => 28961 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Interp Status => --- 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1156#c4203 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Status New => Resolved 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2019-01-10 16:19 geoffclare Tag Attached: tc3-2008 2019-01-11 20:11 osoong Note Added: 0004206 ==
Re: [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0000953]: Alias expansion is under-specified
On 1/11/19 8:15 AM, Stephane Chazelas wrote: > 2019-01-10 19:01:08 -0500, Chet Ramey: >> On 1/10/19 5:29 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote: >> >>> In any case, by no longer allowing pipelines, redirections, >>> multiple commands, keywords, comments in alias values, empty or >>> blank aliases, that proposed change breaks many applications, >>> especially scripts. >> >> I'm not sure making those cases unspecified "breaks many applications." >> Shells, even posix shells in posix mode, are free to accept any or >> all of the above, just as they do today. > [...] > > I re-used kre's "break" here which I believe he meant as: would > make applications no longer conformant (IOW, applications would > mean to be modified to be confomant again, or may not be > portable to newer shells written based on the new text of the > standard). Maybe. However, until those hypothetical future shells appear, the applications are no less portable than they are today. They will run under the same shells they run under now. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
Re: [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0000953]: Alias expansion is under-specified
On 1/11/19 5:27 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Stephane Chazelas wrote: > >> alias for=pour >> alias do=faire >> alias to_french='echo ' >> >> for word in for do; do >> eval "to_french $word" >> done >> >> (which already doesn't work in bash except in posix mode nor in >> zsh in posix mode or not). > > From looking at the error message from bash. it seems that the reason why > bash > fails here is that it parses scripts as a whole and thus does not expand > aliases inside scripts at all. The latter is true by default; the former is not. You can enable alias expansion in non-interactive shells with an option. > If you check the same in an interactive bash 5, you even get error messages > that lead to an implementation bug. There's no bug. Bash allows reserved words to be alias expanded when not in posix mode. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
Re: [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0000953]: Alias expansion is under-specified
Stephane Chazelas wrote: > alias for=pour > alias do=faire > alias to_french='echo ' > > for word in for do; do > eval "to_french $word" > done > > (which already doesn't work in bash except in posix mode nor in > zsh in posix mode or not). >From looking at the error message from bash. it seems that the reason why bash fails here is that it parses scripts as a whole and thus does not expand aliases inside scripts at all. If you check the same in an interactive bash 5, you even get error messages that lead to an implementation bug. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
