[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) wrote:
Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/* Bound on length of the string representing an integer value or type T.
Subtract 1 for the sign bit if t is signed; log10 (2.0) 146/485;
add 1 for integer division truncation; add 1 more for a minus sign
if
FYI, I found that making pr use a very long date string in its
header would overflow the stack:
2005-03-10 Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't segfault for a long header date string, e.g.,
echo a|pr -D +%999A
* src/pr.c (init_header): Use x2nrealloc, rather than
A mischievously chosen format string can make ls overflow its stack.
Format strings can come from the command line, or via gettext.
Note however, that the new code below will rarely be used in practice,
since the initial, non-malloc'd, array sizes are so conservatively sized.
On one system I
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 09:53:22AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) wrote:
#define INT_STRLEN_BOUND(t) \
((sizeof (t) * CHAR_BIT - TYPE_SIGNED(t)) * 146 / 485 + TYPE_SIGNED(t) +
1)
Technically, yes, but that would prohibit applying that macro
to variables,
Yesterday I reported that chown fails to ignore symbolic links during
recursive directory transversals. For convenience, here is the text of
my report, followed by updated information.
snip
version: coreutils-5.2.1-32.rpm (from SuSE 9.2). Linux kernel 2.6.11.1
(kernel.org version).
reiserfs.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Paul Riggs wrote:
Is the sort command supposed to be case-sensitive?
[snip]
Short answer: sort sorts by whatever order the configured locale
requires.
Please see the FAQ Sort does not sort in normal order:
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/coreutils-faq.html
Paul Riggs wrote:
Is the sort command supposed to be case-sensitive? The info
pages imply that it is, but it does not seem to be in various tests I've
run on different versions of it including the current version (from
coreutils-5.2.1).
Thanks for the report. It is most appreciated.
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Technically, yes, but that would prohibit applying that macro
to variables, which is useful. Currently there are uses like
that in the coreutils.
Ah - well, it's easy enough to factor, so you'd have to specify the
signedness explicitly for variables, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) wrote:
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Technically, yes, but that would prohibit applying that macro
to variables, which is useful. Currently there are uses like
that in the coreutils.
Ah - well, it's easy enough to factor, so you'd have to specify the
This may be worthy of raising an issue with the austin group, but I thought I'd
ask here first. A complaint was raised on the cygwin list that the following
sequence had no interactive prompt:
$ uname
CYGWIN_NT-5.0
$ touch a
$ ln a b
$ mv -i a b
$ echo $?
0
$ mv --version | head -n 1
mv (GNU
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) wrote:
This may be worthy of raising an issue with the austin group, but I
thought I'd ask here first. A complaint was raised on the cygwin list
that the following sequence had no interactive prompt:
$ uname
CYGWIN_NT-5.0
$ touch a
$ ln a b
$ mv -i a b
$
11 matches
Mail list logo
