Re: [hackers] [PATCH 2/2] scripts: Fix non-portable find -perm /mode

2023-11-14 Thread Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
Applied, thanks.

Re: [hackers] [PATCH 2/2] scripts: Fix non-portable find -perm /mode

2023-10-29 Thread Quentin Rameau
> > I guess that the original intent of the code here > > was to to find any executable file. > > I concur. It seems to me that the default output mode for `cc` is 755 > even if the parent directory has more restrictive permissions. So the > more concise -perm -111 should suffice. I will leave

Re: [hackers] [PATCH 2/2] scripts: Fix non-portable find -perm /mode

2023-10-29 Thread Randy Palamar
> Not exactly, -perm -111 matches if at least the mode has executable bit > for all (could be 751 for example), > while GNU -perm /111 matches if any bit is set (could be 500). Thanks for the info, I didn't really check the GNU manpage. > I guess that the original intent of the code here > was

Re: [hackers] [PATCH 2/2] scripts: Fix non-portable find -perm /mode

2023-10-29 Thread Quentin Rameau
> Hi Quentin, Hola Randy, > > -find . ! -name . -prune -type f -perm /111 | > > +find . ! -name . -prune -type f \( -perm -u+x -o -perm -g+x -o -perm o+x > > \) | > > I believe `-perm -111` is equivalent and specified by POSIX. Not exactly, -perm -111 matches if at least the mode has

Re: [hackers] [PATCH 2/2] scripts: Fix non-portable find -perm /mode

2023-10-29 Thread Randy Palamar
Hi Quentin, > -find . ! -name . -prune -type f -perm /111 | > +find . ! -name . -prune -type f \( -perm -u+x -o -perm -g+x -o -perm o+x \) | I believe `-perm -111` is equivalent and specified by POSIX. - Randy