On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:28 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> >
> > Thank you for your reply. Could you share any insights why bash
> > doesn't follow POSIX in this regard, like zsh, but unlike ksh, tcsh,
> > and dash/ash?
>
> ksh93u+ 2012-08-01 on RHEL 7 does do this.
>
> tcsh isn't a POSIX shell, so I
On 6/22/20 5:51 PM, Godmar Back wrote:
> You are correct that they then preserve the state upon exit.
> I wasn't aware of that, but it makes a lot of sense - otherwise, "stty
> sane" wouldn't work, or even be necessary (not necessary if the shell
> always restored the state it had upon startup.)
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:19 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 6/22/20 4:48 PM, Godmar Back wrote:
> > (Disclosure: I performed a search for terminal, terminal settings,
> > tcsetattr in the bash-bug mailing list, without finding a discussion.
> > My apologies if this is a known issue or was already
Remove superfluous paragraph macros after and before a subject
heading macro (.SH and .SS).
Change ".br" before a ".sp" to '.'.
The output from "nroff" and "groff" is unchanged.
###
Details:
mandoc: ./doc/bash.1:34:28: UNSUPP: unsupported control character: 0x7
mandoc:
On 6/22/20 4:48 PM, Godmar Back wrote:
> (Disclosure: I performed a search for terminal, terminal settings,
> tcsetattr in the bash-bug mailing list, without finding a discussion.
> My apologies if this is a known issue or was already discussed.)
>
> Hi,
>
> according to POSIX Part A, Base
On 6/22/20 4:16 PM, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> On 22.6. 19.35, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 6/22/20 1:53 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>>> Currently a static sized buffer is used for reading files. At the moment
>>> it is extremely small, making parsing of large files extremely slow.
>>> Increase this to 4k
(Disclosure: I performed a search for terminal, terminal settings,
tcsetattr in the bash-bug mailing list, without finding a discussion.
My apologies if this is a known issue or was already discussed.)
Hi,
according to POSIX Part A, Base Definitions (line 726-728, pg 20, Part
A: Base
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:16 PM Ilkka Virta wrote:
>
> On 22.6. 19.35, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > On 6/22/20 1:53 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> >> Currently a static sized buffer is used for reading files. At the moment
> >> it is extremely small, making parsing of large files extremely slow.
> >>
On 22.6. 19.35, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 6/22/20 1:53 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
Currently a static sized buffer is used for reading files. At the moment
it is extremely small, making parsing of large files extremely slow.
Increase this to 4k for improved performance.
I bumped it up to 1024
Remove space at end of lines.
Chang '\}' to '.\}' at the beginning of one line.
###
Details:
Output is from: test-groff -b -mandoc -T utf8 -rF0 -t -w w -z
[ "test-groff" is a developmental version of "groff" ]
Input file is ././doc/bash.1
troff: <./doc/bash.1>:11: warning: number
Hi Chet,
A little bit larger than 1024, I believe, so 2048 would be reasonable.
However, consider taking this patch as-is with the 4096 page size.
This will yield much better performance and have basically no
drawbacks on any system.
Another place lbuf should be increased is in zcatfd, by the
On 6/22/20 1:53 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Currently a static sized buffer is used for reading files. At the moment
> it is extremely small, making parsing of large files extremely slow.
> Increase this to 4k for improved performance.
I bumped it up to 1024 initially for testing.
> This
On 6/22/20 3:45 AM, baldu...@units.it wrote:
>> It's not a bug. This is the `active region' code displaying the text
>> inserted by a bracketed paste. You can see some of the most recent
>> discussion here:
>>
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2020-03/msg00064.html
>>
>> The original
> It's not a bug. This is the `active region' code displaying the text
> inserted by a bracketed paste. You can see some of the most recent
> discussion here:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2020-03/msg00064.html
>
> The original patch was from 2018:
>
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
