Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 12 November 2012 13:52, Paul Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 13:11 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: >> #!/bin/sh which is mandated to exist by POSIX > > Actually, unless there's been a change, POSIX doesn't mandate that the > POSIX shell appear as /bin/sh. Okay. Taking a deeper look here, I'm wrong. That said, #!/bin/sh is certainly still more portable than #!/bin/bash and the latter is still a portability bug. > Unfortunately, this means that systems are free to provide definitively > non-POSIX /bin/sh and still be allowed to paint themselves with the > veneer of compliance (yes I'm looking at you Solaris!!), since there is > a POSIX shell somewhere (else) on the system. Yes, this can happen. :( -- Eitan Adler ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 13:11 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: > #!/bin/sh which is mandated to exist by POSIX Actually, unless there's been a change, POSIX doesn't mandate that the POSIX shell appear as /bin/sh. Unfortunately, this means that systems are free to provide definitively non-POSIX /bin/sh and still be allowed to paint themselves with the veneer of compliance (yes I'm looking at you Solaris!!), since there is a POSIX shell somewhere (else) on the system. ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 12 November 2012 13:11, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 12 November 2012 13:04, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> yes, when people tell you forcing asinine behavior is wrong, you label them >> trolls. i guess that's how you "win" arguments. > > Claiming that systems without /bin/bash are "crap" shows a level of > naivete that only someone new to the open source world has. It was a > choice between actual > incompetence (unlikely) or pretend incompetence (a troll). > > On to the substance instead of my mistaken ad hominem : > > 1) Even on systems with a binary called /bin/bash using "#!/bash/bash" is > wrong > 2) Many systems don't ship with bash at all for licensing, technical, > or preference reasons > 3) Most operating systems that ship bash don't ship it in /bin > > The only correct behaviors are using > > #!/usr/bin/env bash to find the bash binary > or > #!/bin/sh which is mandated to exist by POSIX actually one more valid behavior: #!/bin/sh [ -z "$BASH" ] && bash $0 though this is far less common and I'm not sure if it has any positives or negatives versus the 'env' approach. -- Eitan Adler ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 12 November 2012 13:04, Mike Frysinger wrote: > yes, when people tell you forcing asinine behavior is wrong, you label them > trolls. i guess that's how you "win" arguments. Claiming that systems without /bin/bash are "crap" shows a level of naivete that only someone new to the open source world has. It was a choice between actual incompetence (unlikely) or pretend incompetence (a troll). On to the substance instead of my mistaken ad hominem : 1) Even on systems with a binary called /bin/bash using "#!/bash/bash" is wrong 2) Many systems don't ship with bash at all for licensing, technical, or preference reasons 3) Most operating systems that ship bash don't ship it in /bin The only correct behaviors are using #!/usr/bin/env bash to find the bash binary or #!/bin/sh which is mandated to exist by POSIX What behavior does 'env' provide that you think isn't good? -- Eitan Adler ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On Monday 12 November 2012 06:03:37 Andrew Stubbs wrote: > Running "sh -x test.sh" shows that the gcc command producing the error: > > + CCACHE_DISABLE=1 gcc -c test1.c -o reference_test1.o -O -O > gcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or directory > > I don't understand what's wrong with that command. gcc isn't supposed to > rely on the PATH to find cc1, but presumably it's something environmental. it relies on argv[0] to locate its internal tools. if you change that command to `env CCACHE_DISABLE=1 ...`, does it work better ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On Saturday 10 November 2012 05:08:40 Joel Rosdahl wrote: > On 10 November 2012 06:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i see old style portable code in there that could easily be modernized to > > recent POSIX > > Please don't strive to do that. Solaris's /bin/sh isn't POSIX. autoconf searches well known paths to locate an up-to-date shell. my limited understanding is that Solaris stores modern tools somewhere in /usr/. would you be amendable to having the script re-exec itself via those so we can update things ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On Sunday 11 November 2012 06:31:14 Eitan Adler wrote: > On 11 November 2012 00:46, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Saturday 10 November 2012 00:41:52 Eitan Adler wrote: > >> On 10 November 2012 00:41, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> > if the script is written in bash and is intended to be, then > >> > /bin/bash is the correct answer. > >> > >> Absolutely false. /usr/local/bin or /opt/bin might be the correct > >> location. > > > > if you have a crap system where bash isn't installed with /bin/bash, then > > you already have a ton of problems with existing software. forcing > > stupid behavior on everyone to cater to broken systems is wrong. > > http://www.technollama.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/obvious-t > roll.jpg yes, when people tell you forcing asinine behavior is wrong, you label them trolls. i guess that's how you "win" arguments. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 12 November 2012 13:00, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 12 November 2012 06:03, Andrew Stubbs wrote: >> Running "sh -x test.sh" shows that the gcc command producing the error: >> >> + CCACHE_DISABLE=1 gcc -c test1.c -o reference_test1.o -O -O >> gcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or directory >> >> I don't understand what's wrong with that command. gcc isn't supposed to >> rely on the PATH to find cc1, but presumably it's something environmental. > > Can you get a ktrace (or strace) of what gcc is doing with and without CCACHE > ? Also, does gcc exhibit problems on other test programs outside of test.sh ? -- Eitan Adler ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 12 November 2012 06:03, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > Running "sh -x test.sh" shows that the gcc command producing the error: > > + CCACHE_DISABLE=1 gcc -c test1.c -o reference_test1.o -O -O > gcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or directory > > I don't understand what's wrong with that command. gcc isn't supposed to > rely on the PATH to find cc1, but presumably it's something environmental. Can you get a ktrace (or strace) of what gcc is doing with and without CCACHE ? -- Eitan Adler ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 11/11/12 11:31, Eitan Adler wrote: Mike, http://www.technollama.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/obvious-troll.jpg Insulting respected members of the Linux community will get you nowhere. I realise that some might call you the same, and BSD also, so you should know better. Andrew, I don't think we ever solved the problem you saw? What error did you get with what shell? It does seem that just using bash is not sufficient to solve this problem. Joel has declared that it must work on Solaris /bin/sh, so work there it must. Not that I have any means to test that. Anyway, here's the transcript showing the problem: /tmp/ccache$ ./test.sh starting testsuite base starting testsuite link gcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or directory gcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or directory SUITE: "link", TEST: "CCACHE_CPP2" - Files differ: reference_test1.o != test1.o cache directory /tmp/ccache/testdir.18802/.ccache primary config /tmp/ccache/testdir.18802/ccache.conf secondary config (readonly) cache hit (direct) 0 cache hit (preprocessed) 4 cache miss 3 called for link2 called for preprocessing 1 multiple source files 1 compiler produced stdout 1 couldn't find the compiler 1 bad compiler arguments 1 unsupported source language1 unsupported compiler option1 output to a non-regular file 1 no input file 1 files in cache 3 cache size 12.3 kB max cache size 5.0 GB TEST FAILED Test data and log file have been left in testdir.18802 I've deliberately moved the sources to /tmp to side-step any possible problems caused by calling test.sh from another directory, but it made no visible difference. And now again with bash: /tmp/ccache$ bash ./test.sh starting testsuite base starting testsuite link starting testsuite hardlink starting testsuite cpp2 starting testsuite nlevels4 starting testsuite nlevels1 starting testsuite basedir starting testsuite direct starting testsuite compression starting testsuite readonly starting testsuite extrafiles starting testsuite cleanup starting testsuite pch starting testsuite upgrade starting testsuite prefix test done - OK checkbashisms does indeed return nothing. Running "sh -x test.sh" shows that the gcc command producing the error: + CCACHE_DISABLE=1 gcc -c test1.c -o reference_test1.o -O -O gcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or directory I don't understand what's wrong with that command. gcc isn't supposed to rely on the PATH to find cc1, but presumably it's something environmental. I'm pretty sure I did not see this problem in the default shell provided by Ubuntu 12.04, so it's either a dash bug, or some kind of subtle incompatibility. Andrew ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 11 November 2012 00:46, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 10 November 2012 00:41:52 Eitan Adler wrote: >> On 10 November 2012 00:41, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > if the script is written in bash and is intended to be, then >> > /bin/bash is the correct answer. >> >> Absolutely false. /usr/local/bin or /opt/bin might be the correct location. > > if you have a crap system where bash isn't installed with /bin/bash, then you > already have a ton of problems with existing software. forcing stupid > behavior on everyone to cater to broken systems is wrong. > -mike Mike, http://www.technollama.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/obvious-troll.jpg Andrew, I don't think we ever solved the problem you saw? What error did you get with what shell? Joel, Thanks for this awesome, portable, piece of software. :) -- Eitan Adler ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On Saturday 10 November 2012 00:41:52 Eitan Adler wrote: > On 10 November 2012 00:41, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > if the script is written in bash and is intended to be, then > > /bin/bash is the correct answer. > > Absolutely false. /usr/local/bin or /opt/bin might be the correct location. if you have a crap system where bash isn't installed with /bin/bash, then you already have a ton of problems with existing software. forcing stupid behavior on everyone to cater to broken systems is wrong. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 10 November 2012 06:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: > i see old style portable code in there that could easily be modernized to > recent POSIX Please don't strive to do that. Solaris's /bin/sh isn't POSIX. -- Joel ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On Monday 05 November 2012 12:55:10 Andrew Stubbs wrote: > The test script fails with shells other than bash. At least dash > doesn't work. could you post the exact errors you see ? i see old style portable code in there that could easily be modernized to recent POSIX and plenty of quoting issues, but i don't see anything off hand that wouldn't work in a POSIX compliant shell. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 10 November 2012 00:41, Mike Frysinger wrote: > ironic considering you're espousing a change to support crap systems that > aren't relevant. I won't comment on this. > if the script is written in bash and is intended to be, then > /bin/bash is the correct answer. Absolutely false. /usr/local/bin or /opt/bin might be the correct location. > if the script is intended to be POSIX shell, > then /bin/sh is the correct answer. Agreed. > using env is just stupid. only if you don't care about portability. POSIX > env > absolute path -- Eitan Adler ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On Tuesday 06 November 2012 11:53:12 Eitan Adler wrote: > On 6 November 2012 04:54, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > > While it is true that "/usr/bin/env bash" is more portable than > > "/bin/bash", I also don't like it as much. > > > > If I run a "#!/bin/bash" script without bash installed I get: > > /bin/bash: bad interpreter: No such file or directory > > > > If I try the same with "#!/usr/bin/env bash" I get: > > /bin/env: bad interpreter: No such file or directory > > Perhaps you should get a better version of env? ironic considering you're espousing a change to support crap systems that aren't relevant. if the script is written in bash and is intended to be, then /bin/bash is the correct answer. if the script is intended to be POSIX shell, then /bin/sh is the correct answer. using env is just stupid. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 5 November 2012 18:55, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > The test script fails with shells other than bash. At least dash > doesn't work. test.sh is intended to work even on Solaris's /bin/sh, which is even more restricted than dash. Current test.sh on master and maint works well with dash for me. Please report any failures you see. -- Joel ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 06/11/12 16:53, Eitan Adler wrote: Perhaps you should get a better version of env? Perhaps I should! I'm running Ubuntu 12.10, so I'm surprised about that. But even if I did there would be many others with the same issue. The followup to this discussion indicates that /bin/sh seems to be sufficient (I need to check this myself when I get a chance). checkbashims sees nothing wrong. Ok, well, I couldn't identify the exact problem either, so this seemed like the easiest fix, and anyway bashisms are nice, if they're allowed. Feel free to propose an alternative patch. :) Andrew ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 6 November 2012 04:54, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > > While it is true that "/usr/bin/env bash" is more portable than "/bin/bash", > I also don't like it as much. > > If I run a "#!/bin/bash" script without bash installed I get: > > /bin/bash: bad interpreter: No such file or directory > > If I try the same with "#!/usr/bin/env bash" I get: > > /bin/env: bad interpreter: No such file or directory Perhaps you should get a better version of env? I get: [10026 eitan@radar ~ ]%./hello env: asdf: No such file or directory [10027 eitan@radar ~ !127!]%cat hello #!/usr/bin/env asdf > In the former case any mildly experienced Unix user will just sigh and run > the script under bash manually. In the later case you have to be very > experienced not to spend ages thinking you must be crazy or have found a > kernel bug, or something. In the former case the package maintainers must fix the portability bug the upstream author has introduced. In the latter case they just have to add a dependency. > It is, of course, the official Ccache maintainer's call which style is > preferred, or even whether it's better to find and stamp out the errant > bashism in the script, but my vote is for the simple /bin/bash option. The followup to this discussion indicates that /bin/sh seems to be sufficient (I need to check this myself when I get a chance). checkbashims sees nothing wrong. -- Eitan Adler ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 06/11/12 10:05, g@free.fr wrote: On my debian stable machine (x86 32 bits), I set sh as a symlink to dash and changed my script to emit SHELL='/bin/dash' test is ok with 3.1.8 (ccache is statically linked to glibc in my configuration). I looked with checkbashims on test.sh git version and no warning is emitted. Perhaps the problem was introduced since 3.1.8 then. I can't say for sure because it was the first test run I did after upgrading to Ubuntu 12.10 that failed. I presumed that the default /bin/sh had changed, but it could equally be that the test.sh has acquired a bashism at the same time. As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly fine if the script only runs in bash. The shell is fairly ubiquitous, and test.sh is certainly not written in the paranoid style of configure scripts. Andrew ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
- Mail original - > De: "Andrew Stubbs" > À: "g esp" > Cc: ccache@lists.samba.org > Envoyé: Mardi 6 Novembre 2012 10:55:23 > Objet: Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh. > > On 05/11/12 22:35, g@free.fr wrote: > > ccache-3.1.8 'make check' work with dash, no? > > There's no problem with configure or make, only with test.sh. > > Andrew > > 'make check' target run test.sh On my debian stable machine (x86 32 bits), I set sh as a symlink to dash and changed my script to emit SHELL='/bin/dash' test is ok with 3.1.8 (ccache is statically linked to glibc in my configuration). I looked with checkbashims on test.sh git version and no warning is emitted. Gilles ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 05/11/12 22:35, g@free.fr wrote: ccache-3.1.8 'make check' work with dash, no? There's no problem with configure or make, only with test.sh. Andrew ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 05/11/12 17:58, Eitan Adler wrote: -#!/bin/sh +#!/bin/bash This line is buggy: please http://blog.eitanadler.com/2012/10/binbash-considered-harmful.html for why. I ideally the non-portable bashims get fixed but if not the shebang line must be "/usr/bin/env bash" not /bin/bash. While it is true that "/usr/bin/env bash" is more portable than "/bin/bash", I also don't like it as much. If I run a "#!/bin/bash" script without bash installed I get: /bin/bash: bad interpreter: No such file or directory If I try the same with "#!/usr/bin/env bash" I get: /bin/env: bad interpreter: No such file or directory which is demonstrably untrue and far less helpful. In the former case any mildly experienced Unix user will just sigh and run the script under bash manually. In the later case you have to be very experienced not to spend ages thinking you must be crazy or have found a kernel bug, or something. Now, if the script were deeply embedded in some other tool where the user would not be able to intervene then I would consider the env trick, but even then I would probably use "#!/bin/sh" and have the script locate bash and re-exec itself. It is, of course, the official Ccache maintainer's call which style is preferred, or even whether it's better to find and stamp out the errant bashism in the script, but my vote is for the simple /bin/bash option. Andrew ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
- Mail original - > De: "Andrew Stubbs" > À: ccache@lists.samba.org > Envoyé: Lundi 5 Novembre 2012 18:55:10 > Objet: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh. > > The test script fails with shells other than bash. At least dash > doesn't work. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Stubbs > --- > test.sh |2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/test.sh b/test.sh > index 4c78617..a334f62 100755 > --- a/test.sh > +++ b/test.sh > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -#!/bin/sh > +#!/bin/bash > # > # A simple test suite for ccache. > # > -- ccache-3.1.8 'make check' work with dash, no? Gilles ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
On 5 November 2012 12:55, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > The test script fails with shells other than bash. At least dash > doesn't work. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Stubbs > --- > test.sh |2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/test.sh b/test.sh > index 4c78617..a334f62 100755 > --- a/test.sh > +++ b/test.sh > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -#!/bin/sh > +#!/bin/bash This line is buggy: please http://blog.eitanadler.com/2012/10/binbash-considered-harmful.html for why. I ideally the non-portable bashims get fixed but if not the shebang line must be "/usr/bin/env bash" not /bin/bash. -- Eitan Adler ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
