Re: bug in ksh?
Jakub Bogusz wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 06:24:50PM +0200, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała > wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:54:33AM +0100, wrobell wrote: > > > > weirdy difference between sh from ksh and bash: > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ bash > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > > > > works > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sh > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qf /bin/sh /bin/bash > > > > > > > > pdksh-5.2.14-43 > > > > bash-3.1.017-1 > > > > > > 32 bit unsigned int vs 32 bit signed int vs 64 bit long? > > ano. > > but - it works differrent on miscelious archs (on 64bits - works ok). > > > > what is correct? bash or ksh behaviour? > > I think bash is correct. But ksh may be correct too - see below. > > > i think ksh behaviour is a bug... > > Does POSIX/SUS specify what integer values should be supported? > I can't find it now. > > I assume that values larger than some value are allowed to give > "undefined" results. I think it is OK unless 64-bit arithmetic is explicitely required. Older bash versions (see Ra) has the same behaviour AFAIR. If a script needs 64-bit arithmetics, it should check whether it is supported. -- === Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone (48)(58) 347 14 61 Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math., Gdansk University of Technology ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug in ksh?
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 07:53:41PM +0200, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 06:40:47PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > i think ksh behaviour is a bug... > > > > Does POSIX/SUS specify what integer values should be supported? > > I can't find it now. > > > > I assume that values larger than some value are allowed to give > > "undefined" results. > but it may confuse scripts who expect that it works "ok". :/ How big numbers can scripts expect to work "ok"? I found some rational (but unofficial) interpretation: http://www.pasc.org/interps/unofficial/db/p1003.2/pasc-1003.2-208.html Add new paragraphs to rationale in the XRAT volume after P3523, L9347: Although the 1999 C Standard now requires support for long long and allows extended integer types with higher ranks, this standard only requires arithmetic expansions to support signed long integer arithmetic. Implementations are encouraged to support signed integer values at least as large as the size of the largest file allowed on the implementation. "signed long integer" is 32-bit on x86, 64-bit on x86_64. We build pdksh _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, but "encouraged" is not "required". > zsh, csh, tcsh works like bash. > > so - fix it, or leave? Feel encouraged to "fix" ;) -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.cs.net.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug in ksh?
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 06:40:47PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > i think ksh behaviour is a bug... > > Does POSIX/SUS specify what integer values should be supported? > I can't find it now. > > I assume that values larger than some value are allowed to give > "undefined" results. but it may confuse scripts who expect that it works "ok". :/ zsh, csh, tcsh works like bash. so - fix it, or leave? -- Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała UNIX && Linux administrator, Adam Mickiewicz University WMiI PLD Linux Developer HomePage: http://andrzej.dopierala.name/ JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug in ksh?
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 06:24:50PM +0200, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:54:33AM +0100, wrobell wrote: > > > weirdy difference between sh from ksh and bash: > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ bash > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > > > works > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sh > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qf /bin/sh /bin/bash > > > > > > pdksh-5.2.14-43 > > > bash-3.1.017-1 > > > > 32 bit unsigned int vs 32 bit signed int vs 64 bit long? > ano. > but - it works differrent on miscelious archs (on 64bits - works ok). > > what is correct? bash or ksh behaviour? I think bash is correct. But ksh may be correct too - see below. > i think ksh behaviour is a bug... Does POSIX/SUS specify what integer values should be supported? I can't find it now. I assume that values larger than some value are allowed to give "undefined" results. -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.cs.net.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug in ksh?
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 18:24 +0200, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:54:33AM +0100, wrobell wrote: > > > weirdy difference between sh from ksh and bash: > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ bash > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > > > works > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sh > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qf /bin/sh /bin/bash > > > > > > pdksh-5.2.14-43 > > > bash-3.1.017-1 > > > > 32 bit unsigned int vs 32 bit signed int vs 64 bit long? > ano. > but - it works differrent on miscelious archs (on 64bits - works ok). > > what is correct? bash or ksh behaviour? > > i think ksh behaviour is a bug... what posix says? wrobell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug in ksh?
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:54:33AM +0100, wrobell wrote: > > weirdy difference between sh from ksh and bash: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ bash > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > > works > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sh > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qf /bin/sh /bin/bash > > > > pdksh-5.2.14-43 > > bash-3.1.017-1 > > 32 bit unsigned int vs 32 bit signed int vs 64 bit long? ano. but - it works differrent on miscelious archs (on 64bits - works ok). what is correct? bash or ksh behaviour? i think ksh behaviour is a bug... -- Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała UNIX && Linux administrator, Adam Mickiewicz University WMiI PLD Linux Developer HomePage: http://andrzej.dopierala.name/ JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug in ksh?
Dnia piątek, 7 lipca 2006 12:48, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała napisał: > weirdy difference between sh from ksh and bash: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ bash > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > works > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sh > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qf /bin/sh /bin/bash > pdksh-5.2.14-43 > bash-3.1.017-1 [ ac-amd64 ] $ sh -c '[ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works' works $ rpm -q pdksh pdksh-5.2.14-43 [ th-x86_64 ] $ sh -c '[ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works' works $ rpm -q pdksh pdksh-5.2.14-43.x86_64 ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug in ksh?
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 12:48 +0200, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała wrote: > weirdy difference between sh from ksh and bash: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ bash > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > works > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sh > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qf /bin/sh /bin/bash > > pdksh-5.2.14-43 > bash-3.1.017-1 32 bit unsigned int vs 32 bit signed int vs 64 bit long? wrobell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
bug in ksh?
weirdy difference between sh from ksh and bash: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ bash [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works works [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sh [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [ "30" -ge "20" ] && echo works [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qf /bin/sh /bin/bash pdksh-5.2.14-43 bash-3.1.017-1 -- Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała UNIX && Linux administrator, Adam Mickiewicz University WMiI PLD Linux Developer HomePage: http://andrzej.dopierala.name/ JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
