Re: [bug #51711] non-helping error output with find

[kalle]

>> -the number of acceptable -name arguments
> 
> I tried to find a place both in find's manpage and the Texinfo
> manual (in latest Git), but didn't find an ambiguous place where
> I could read that -name would accept more than 1 argument.
> Would you please point to the relevant place?

As I pointed out in comment#5:
"I didn't find the place, where it does. What I found in man find was
'-name pattern' instead of 'patterns', but this is not a clear statement
imo. But also: in 'info find', node 'Primary Index' I fond '-name Base
name patterns' with s! "

I argued, that it is not written, that it accepts only one argument,
while you argue, that it is not written, that it accepts more than 1
argument. Is this a standard (that normally there is only one argument,
if not specified else) or why do you assume so? Then I would be sorry
for having taking your time because of this.

> -the insufficient non-bug explananation in man find [...]
> __^
> sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.
> Would you please point to a place there you think is not
> sufficient (and suggest a better wording, ideally as a Git
> patch)?

I meant, that in "man find" the part "non-bug" assumes, that "of course"
the there given example will not work. No more explanation why. This is
not enough.
have a nice day,
kalle

Re: SIGSEGV in partial_quotearg_n()

[Kamil Dudka]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 11:51:08 PM CEST Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 08/18/2017 04:23 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > We have multiple occurrences of automated crash reports:
> > 
> > https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/reports/1209278/
> > 
> > ... about SIGSEGV in partial_quotearg_n() at this location in the source
> > code:
> > 
> > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/findutils.git/tree/find/ftsfind.c?h=v4.6.
> > 0#n219
> > 
> > I guess it crashes because ent->fts_cycle->fts_pathlen is out of bound of
> > ent->fts_cycle->fts_path but I do not fully understand what the function
> > is supposed to do...
> 
> The FAF page doesn't show much.  Any reproducer? Or at least the command
> line arguments, or ...?

Unfortunately not.  These reports are anonymous and they have to respect 
user's privacy.  I do not have any info except the FAF page I linked :-/

Kamil

> Thanks & have a nice day,
> Berny

[bug #51711] non-helping error output with find

[anonymous]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #51711 (project findutils):



>> -the number of acceptable -name arguments
>
> I tried to find a place both in find's manpage and the Texinfo
> manual (in latest Git), but didn't find an ambiguous place where
> I could read that -name would accept more than 1 argument.
> Would you please point to the relevant place?

As I pointed out in comment#5:
"I didn't find the place, where it does. What I found in man find was
'-name pattern' instead of 'patterns', but this is not a clear statement
imo. But also: in 'info find', node 'Primary Index' I fond '-name Base
name patterns' with s! "

I argued, that it is not written, that it accepts only one argument,
while you argue, that it is not written, that it accepts more than 1
argument. Is this a standard (that normally there is only one argument,
if not specified else) or why do you assume so? Then I would be sorry
for having taking your time because of this.

> -the insufficient non-bug explananation in man find [...]
> __^
> sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.
> Would you please point to a place there you think is not
> sufficient (and suggest a better wording, ideally as a Git
> patch)?

I meant, that in "man find" the part "non-bug" assumes, that "of course"
the there given example will not work. No more explanation why. This is
not enough.

have a nice day,
kalle



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/