On Wed, 2013-07-31 11:31:35 -0400, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 11:36 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-07-31 10:34:10 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbg...@lug-owl.de> > > wrote: [breakage with mawk] > > > It seems this does only happen on one of the three running build > > > clients. That one is using `mawk' instead of `gawk', what the two > > > other builders (which are not affected) use. > > > > The substr() was wrong, awk starts all its indices with 1, while the > > script used 0. gawk ignores this, mawk starts the substring at 1, but > > counts from 0 upwards. > > A thousand apologies, and thanks for fixing this - I guess I owe you a > $FAVORITE_BEVERAGE. I had only tested with gawk (with and without -c) > and with busybox awk. I've now installed mawk and nawk on my dev box.
That's why I'm running the build robot :) Once I've got some
time[tm], I'll spend it a small web frontend to look into the basic
information (which builds worked/failed, show build logfile, show git
log between working/non-working version.)
> Are that any other awks I should be testing with - and is this
> information captured somewhere for reference?
I don't know of any--I'm actually not a regular awk user at all.
And actually testing specific awk features isn't codified IMHO. And
while indices start at 1 (so the code was buggy in that way), it might
also be true that the implementation-defined behavior of virtually all
awk variants is to silently s/0/1/. Then, this would be an additional
glitch (not bug) in my mawk.
> However, having said that, with my original version (as of r201359), I
> get the same results as with your version:
>
> $ md5sum gen-pass-instances.awk.*
> 6dcc4e2de8241f1811435013da44b757 gen-pass-instances.awk.new
> 7e5ad85f1f919dea9862b420ddbb0fdd gen-pass-instances.awk.old
>
> $ diff gen-pass-instances.awk.old gen-pass-instances.awk.new
> 58c58
> < substr(line, 0, pass_starts_at + len_of_pass_name - 1),
> ---
> > substr(line, 1, pass_starts_at + len_of_pass_name - 1),
>
> $ for AWK in gawk "gawk -c" mawk nawk "busybox awk" ; \
> do \
> $AWK -f gen-pass-instances.awk.old passes.def \
> > "pass-instances-old-$AWK.def" ; \
> done
>
> $ md5sum pass-instances-old-*
> e7d0f2c2ab4f2e83fbd032f222d66530 pass-instances-old-busybox awk.def
> e7d0f2c2ab4f2e83fbd032f222d66530 pass-instances-old-gawk -c.def
> e7d0f2c2ab4f2e83fbd032f222d66530 pass-instances-old-gawk.def
> e7d0f2c2ab4f2e83fbd032f222d66530 pass-instances-old-mawk.def
> e7d0f2c2ab4f2e83fbd032f222d66530 pass-instances-old-nawk.def
>
> so it seems they're all generating the same output, with both my old
> version and your new version.
>
> Have I messed up my testing above, or is something else going on? What
> version of mawk are you using?
Your testing looks fine to me. My Debian "unstable" mawk is slightly
older than yours: 1.3.3-17
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481
Signature of: Zensur im Internet? Nein danke!
the second :
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
