Paul Eggert wrote:
The GNU Coding Standards say that programs' behavior should be
independent of file type, but POSIX says that tail is supposed to
ignore any -f option if it has no operands and if standard input is a
pipe. The POSIX requirement is kind of strange and I don't think many
For a while now I have been seeing intermittent failures of the
tests/stty/basic-1 test on HP-UX 11.11. They are most
frustratingly^Winterestingly not repeatable. Most of the time the
test passes. But sometimes, every so often, the test fails with this
output:
stty: missing argument to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes:
Could you expand on ... I don't think many people are relying on it,
but it's common practice. as that seem to imply conflicting things
I meant both:
(1) ... | tail -f commonly acts like ... | tail; and
(2) I don't think many people are relying on this
Paul Eggert wrote:
(2) I don't think many people are relying on this behavior.
(Why would you want to run tail -f on a pipe?)
Agreed. That does seem freaky. I can't think of a useful case for it.
Bob
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
(2) I don't think many people are relying on this behavior. (Why
would you want to run tail -f on a pipe?)
Agreed. That does seem freaky. I can't think of a useful case for
it.
I can't think of a specific or concrete case right now, but `tail -f'
on a pipe could be used on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote:
For a while now I have been seeing intermittent failures of the
tests/stty/basic-1 test on HP-UX 11.11. They are most
frustratingly^Winterestingly not repeatable. Most of the time the
test passes. But sometimes, every so often, the test fails with this
Bob,
Thanks for your prompt response.
What I'm looking for is an end-to-end swap. e.g. swap f841 to
41f8 so that 'od' will return 3.100e+01
I can write a byte-swap function in awk, but I can't translate the
floats into something I can understand - it would require getting into
the
Fabio Spelta's bug report
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-06/msg00202.html
prompted me to improve 'seq' so that it can handle larger integers.
After all, a limit of 99 is pretty silly in this day and age.
I redid how the default format is calculated, and used 'long
Mike Lockhart wrote:
What I'm looking for is an end-to-end swap. e.g. swap f841 to
41f8 so that 'od' will return 3.100e+01
What options are you using to 'od'?
I can write a byte-swap function in awk, but I can't translate the
floats into something I can understand - it would
