Geoff Clare wrote, on 17 Jul 2019:
>
> For foreground jobs, shells differ:
>
> Ksh93 has it as an AND-OR list:
>
> $ sleep 3 && sleep 4
> ^Z[1] + Stopped sleep 3 && sleep 4
> $ jobs
> [1] + Stopped sleep 3 && sleep 4
>
> Bash does not:
>
> $ sleep 3
Op 07-08-19 om 09:40 schreef Geoff Clare:
It seems that bash has a rather nasty bug here, as can be seen in the
following:
$ sleep 5 || true && echo foo
^Z
[1]+ Stopped(SIGTSTP)sleep 5
foo
$ fg
sleep 5
When the sleep 5 was stopped, bash treated this as completion of
that pipeline
2019-08-07 10:31:38 +0100, Martijn Dekker:
> Op 07-08-19 om 09:40 schreef Geoff Clare:
> > It seems that bash has a rather nasty bug here, as can be seen in the
> > following:
> >
> > $ sleep 5 || true && echo foo
> > ^Z
> > [1]+ Stopped(SIGTSTP)sleep 5
> > foo
> > $ fg
> > sleep 5
[...]
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=374
==
Reported By:eblake
Assigned To:ajosey
Op 07-08-19 om 11:09 schreef Joerg Schilling:
Martijn Dekker wrote:
So it appears that every current shell is broken in the same way, except
the two that can claim a direct lineage to the original Bourne shell.
Which is interesting because the obsolete Bourne shell on Solaris 10
(/bin/sh)
Martijn Dekker wrote:
> After 'set -m' I cannot get /bin/sh on Solaris 10.1 to interrupt the
> 'sleep' command with ^Z, so I can't easily test whether Geoff's test
> case works correctly there.
Do you know when this shell has been published by Sun?
I get on Solaris 11 (an OpenSolaris build):
Joerg Schilling wrote, on 07 Aug 2019:
>
> Martijn Dekker wrote:
>
> > After 'set -m' I cannot get /bin/sh on Solaris 10.1 to interrupt the
> > 'sleep' command with ^Z, so I can't easily test whether Geoff's test
> > case works correctly there.
>
> Do you know when this shell has been
Martijn Dekker wrote:
> So it appears that every current shell is broken in the same way, except
> the two that can claim a direct lineage to the original Bourne shell.
>
> Which is interesting because the obsolete Bourne shell on Solaris 10
> (/bin/sh) does not seem to support job control at
Date:Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:40:15 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20190807084015.GA402@lt2.masqnet>
| Obviously what it should have done is delay processing the remainder
| of the AND-OR list until after the sleep had terminated (which was a
| couple of seconds
Robert Elz wrote, on 07 Aug 2019:
>
> | Obviously what it should have done is delay processing the remainder
> | of the AND-OR list until after the sleep had terminated (which was a
> | couple of seconds after I typed "fg").
>
> This is very hard to do correctly, and no, even ksh does not
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 374.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1218
==
Reported By:alanc
Assigned
Date:Wed, 7 Aug 2019 15:11:52 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20190807141152.GB6124@lt2.masqnet>
| Who says those operations aren't supposed to change the results?
Who says that they are, or are permitted to?
In the example I gave, sleep was the only command
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001218.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=374
==
Reported By:eblake
Assigned
On 8/6/19 4:48 AM, Geoff Clare wrote:
> These are the draft minutes from yesterday's call. Andrew will need
> to allocate the Austin-xxx document number and add the file to the
> document register after he returns.
>
>
> Minutes of the 5th August 2019 Teleconference Austin-xxx Page 1 of 1
What's the plan for the qsort_r interface, given that glibc and BSD have
mutually incompatible ones (which is why I didn't add it to Android)?
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 14:02 Eric Blake wrote:
> On 8/6/19 4:48 AM, Geoff Clare wrote:
> > These are the draft minutes from yesterday's call. Andrew will
i'm not worried about FreeBSD so much as macOS and (even more so) iOS.
i'm assuming they won't take the FreeBSD change, but don't know if
anyone knows them to ask them?
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:58 PM Eric Blake wrote:
>
> On 8/7/19 4:43 PM, enh wrote:
> > What's the plan for the qsort_r
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1218
==
Reported By:alanc
Assigned To:
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1218
==
Reported By:alanc
Assigned To:
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1218
==
Reported By:alanc
Assigned To:
On 8/7/19 4:43 PM, enh wrote:
> What's the plan for the qsort_r interface, given that glibc and BSD have
> mutually incompatible ones (which is why I didn't add it to Android)?
Per http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=900#c4112, FreeBSD was
planning to switch over to the glibc signature, making
On 8/7/19 2:43 PM, enh wrote:
What's the plan for the qsort_r interface, given that glibc and BSD have
mutually incompatible ones (which is why I didn't add it to Android)?
For what it's worth, Solaris has followed the lead of glibc and NetBSD in
implementing qsort_r() as:
void
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1218
==
Reported By:alanc
Assigned To:
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1218
==
Reported By:alanc
Assigned To:
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1218
==
Reported By:alanc
Assigned To:
24 matches
Mail list logo
