Quoting Felipe W Damasio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent on Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:28:34 -0200
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
So can you guys please consider this cleanup then?
It would break international support.
I can't see how, as the binary ignores parameters like --help, even though
it is present
So can you guys please consider this cleanup then?
It would break international support.
I can't see how, as the binary ignores parameters like --help, even
though it is present in the man page.
No it doesn't,
~ $ /bin/true --help
Usage: /bin/true [ignored command line
May one ask why you are so concerned about saving a few bytes?
I think it is an outrage that a simple task like returning a code
indicating success has to take more than a few bytes.
Well, that doesn't answer the question but shifts it. Why do you
consider it an outrage that it takes
More than just a few bytes:
$ /usr/bin/time true
0.01user 0.00system 0:00.02elapsed 41%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (134major+35minor)pagefaults 0swaps
I think that this is valid for the ``false'' program too:
$ /usr/bin/time false
Command exited
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Paul Eggert wrote:
If small size is all you want, I can do a lot better than that:
$ ls -l true
-rwxr-xr-x 1 eggert eggert 10 2004-11-19 22:18 true
$ ./true; echo $?
0
Can't beat this for size:
$ ls -l true
-rwxr-xr-x 1 prowlands users 0 Nov 20 12:59 true
$ ./true;
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:20:58PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
If small size is all you want, I can do a lot better than that:
$ ls -l true
-rwxr-xr-x 1 eggert eggert 10 2004-11-19 22:18 true
$ ./true; echo $?
0
(The 10-byte implementation is left to the reader. :-)
Well, there's
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 01:02:37PM +, Philip Rowlands wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Paul Eggert wrote:
If small size is all you want, I can do a lot better than that:
$ ls -l true
-rwxr-xr-x 1 eggert eggert 10 2004-11-19 22:18 true
$ ./true; echo $?
0
Can't beat this for size:
Dmitry V. Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Yes :) but execve(2) returns ENOEXEC:
$ env -i strace ./true
execve(./true, [./true], [/* 0 vars */]) = 0
strace: exec: Exec format error
If you use a more robust shell :-), you don't have to
resort to using strace:
$ touch true; chmod a+x
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Youngman) writes:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:20:58PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
If small size is all you want, I can do a lot better than that:
$ ls -l true
-rwxr-xr-x 1 eggert eggert 10 2004-11-19 22:18 true
$ ./true; echo $?
0
(The 10-byte
(The 10-byte implementation is left to the reader. :-)
But that is so big! Think what I could use 10 bytes for!
/home/update/ams $ ./true; echo $?
0
/home/update/ams $ ls -l true
-rwxr-xr-x 1 ams 134 0 Nov 20 18:59 true
Implementation details are also left to the reader.
$ ls -l true
-rwxr-xr-x 1 prowlands users 0 Nov 20 12:59 true
$ ./true; echo $?
0
(The implementation is left to the reader. :-)
Bah, someone beat me to it... :-)
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas Schwab wrote:
James Youngman writes:
Paul Eggert wrote:
If small size is all you want, I can do a lot better than that:
[Paul says 10 bytes. James says zero bytes.]
This is not necessarily the best one.
$ time ./true
0.00user 0.00system 0m0.02selapsed 9.60%CPU
$ time
Jim Meyering wrote:
If you use a more robust shell :-), you don't have to
resort to using strace:
$ touch true; chmod a+x true; ./true
zsh: exec format error: ./true
But how does zsh run those classic V7 scripts that don't start with a
#!interpreter and expect the user's shell to run
The current true program is an amazing-bloated thing.
As you have seem from the small dicussion, that even your 3.2k is
bloated. Point is that 13k is nothing, now if you really need to
save 13k on a system then you should first of all not use the GNU C
library; and secondly, compile
Felipe W Damasio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, as it doesn't support true --version or true --help.
True.
(No pun intended :-)
So can you guys please consider this cleanup then?
But that cleanup would break both true --version and true --help.
Hi Paul,
Paul Eggert wrote:
No, as it doesn't support true --version or true --help.
True.
So can you guys please consider this cleanup then?
Cheers,
Felipe
--- coreutils-5.1.3/src/true.c.orig 2004-11-20 20:07:13.781095240 -0200
+++ coreutils-5.1.3/src/true.c
So can you guys please consider this cleanup then?
It would break international support.
May one ask why you are so concerned about saving a few bytes?
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Felipe W Damasio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's semantically _equivalent_ to the current 'true' code on
coreutils,
No, as it doesn't support true --version or true --help.
The regular executable is 6.7K, and the stripped version is 3.2K.
If small size is all you want, I can do a lot
18 matches
Mail list logo
