On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:32:43PM -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:58:43PM -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> >> Yes -- but that function can blow up the first time that it tries to touch
> >> its arguments in a numeric context. So it would have to break them into two
> >> smaller integers without using arithmetic and without the benefit of
> >> ${foo:a:b} (these toy shells don't support that form of expansion).
> >>
> >> That will be ugly and slow.
> >
> > (Or you could use dc, which would be ugly and fast, and probably less work)
>
> My initial tests with BusyBox dc have not given me a warm and fuzzy feeling:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/shorewall/trunk/Shorewall-common$ ~/dc
> 2953838592
> p
> 2.95384e+09
Hrngh. You're right, busybox dc is not a correct implementation of
posix dc. I think that means you're screwed. To hell with it, and
depend on bc for arithmetic?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
