Re: enhancement request for a long word byte swap option for 'dd'

Mike Lockhart wrote: > What I'm looking for is an end-to-end swap. e.g. swap f841 to > 41f8 so that 'od' will return 3.100e+01 What options are you using to 'od'? > I can write a byte-swap function in awk, but I can't translate the > floats into something I can understand - it would

'seq' improvements to support wider numbers

Fabio Spelta's bug report prompted me to improve 'seq' so that it can handle larger integers. After all, a limit of 99 is pretty silly in this day and age. I redid how the default format is calculated, and used 'long doubl

Re: elusive failure in tests/stty/basic-1 on HP-UX

Bob Proulx wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: > > Not impossible, just the result of stty thinking the console is > > very narrow. You can reproduce the problem by running this: > > > > stty columns 1; stty -a; stty columns 80 > > Ah! Now I see. Yes, that looks like it. Here is some more backgrou

RE: enhancement request for a long word byte swap option for 'dd'

Bob, Thanks for your prompt response. What I'm looking for is an end-to-end swap. e.g. swap f841 to 41f8 so that 'od' will return 3.100e+01 I can write a byte-swap function in awk, but I can't translate the floats into something I can understand - it would require getting into the b

RE: enhancement request for a long word byte swap option for 'dd'

Paul, Many thanks for your prompt response. 1I've been googling for about a month or so on this and haven't found anything. I've also been bugging some developer colleagues, and about the best we can come up with is supplying a small byte-swap binary along with the script so it will run

Re: elusive failure in tests/stty/basic-1 on HP-UX

Jim Meyering wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > (However once sed is used I would probably go the entire way and do it > > all with sed instead of the longer pipeline. :-) > > I suspect I wrote it that way because I *knew* tr ';' '\n' > would do what I want (since we're guaranteed to be using the > j

Re: elusive failure in tests/stty/basic-1 on HP-UX

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote: > For a while now I have been seeing intermittent failures of the > tests/stty/basic-1 test on HP-UX 11.11. They are most > frustratingly^Winterestingly not repeatable. Most of the time the > test passes. But sometimes, every so often, the test fails with th

Re: GNU coding standards clash with POSIX for "... | tail -f"

> (2) I don't think many people are relying on this behavior. (Why > would you want to run "tail -f" on a pipe?) Agreed. That does seem freaky. I can't think of a useful case for it. I can't think of a specific or concrete case right now, but `tail -f' on a pipe could be used o

Re: GNU coding standards clash with POSIX for "... | tail -f"

Paul Eggert wrote: > (2) I don't think many people are relying on this behavior. > (Why would you want to run "tail -f" on a pipe?) Agreed. That does seem freaky. I can't think of a useful case for it. Bob ___ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-core

Re: GNU coding standards clash with POSIX for "... | tail -f"

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes: > Could you expand on "... I don't think many people are relying on it, > but it's common practice." as that seem to imply conflicting things I meant both: (1) "... | tail -f" commonly acts like "... | tail"; and (2) I don't think many people are relying o

elusive failure in tests/stty/basic-1 on HP-UX

For a while now I have been seeing intermittent failures of the tests/stty/basic-1 test on HP-UX 11.11. They are most frustratingly^Winterestingly not repeatable. Most of the time the test passes. But sometimes, every so often, the test fails with this output: stty: missing argument to `rows'