Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

* Eric Blake wrote on Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:26:41PM CET: > According to Ralf Wildenhues on 11/23/2008 1:10 AM: > > Are we certain enough no bash or zsh version has problems with a long > > format string? > > I'm not certain they are bug-free on all possible formats (for example, > printf %10

Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Ralf Wildenhues on 11/23/2008 1:10 AM: >> At least we can hard-code the fact that ZSH_VERSION or >> BASH_VERSION implies a builtin printf, to skip the forks on those shells. > > You mean like this? > Are we certain enough no bash or zsh v

Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

* Eric Blake wrote on Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 03:37:03PM CET: > According to Eric Blake on 11/22/2008 7:31 AM: > > Maybe a better suggested test would be one that checks for either print or > > printf (that way, a Solaris machine will let ksh pass the suggested test). > >Since the overall test is

Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Eric Blake on 11/22/2008 7:31 AM: > Maybe a better suggested test would be one that checks for either print or > printf (that way, a Solaris machine will let ksh pass the suggested test). >Since the overall test is running with stderr

Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Ralf Wildenhues on 11/22/2008 6:57 AM: > I propose two alternative patches to fix these issues. Both, as the > code before the patch, assume that `test' is a built-in command. Yuck. But reasonably safe; per http://www.in-ulm.de/~maschec

Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

> IIUC then this code has two problems: first, it changes PATH and FPATH > for any _AS_DETECT_SUGGESTED shell snippets expanded right after this > one. Second, it uses an unsafe replacement path (this problem stems > from before your patch). Oops, I remembered that each snippet expanded to a sub

Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

Hello again, * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 02:16:03PM CET: > * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 (LT_INIT): Add _LT_SHELL_INIT to > work around Autoconf <2.64 bug. > (_LT_OUTPUT_LIBTOOL_COMMANDS_INIT): Add func_fallback_echo. > Eliminate lt_ECHO requoting. > (_LT_SHELL_INIT): Use a public M4sh

Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

Hi Paolo, * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:58:32PM CET: > > > > Regarding the 6/6 patch, you have posted several variants, also there > > are pending issues. For me it'd be easiest to review the final one > > when things have been hashed out; I think I've voiced all concerns tha

Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

> Yes; I usually give the other maintainers a day to comment before adding > write access; sorry if I wasn't clear enough about this. No feedback, > so I added you now. Can you try if it works now? I was actually checking if I already had write access (did not remember). Does not work yet, but

Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

Hi Paolo, * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 02:16:03PM CET: > > Regarding the other patches, I retested them successfully using Autoconf > 2.59 for the tests/*demo* directories. Thanks. > When pushing I got this error > > error: unable to create temporary sha1 filename ./objects/9

Re: [PATCH 6/6] use print or printf or cat as $ECHO (really)

Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> 1) I don't have access to systems that are old or weird enough to check >> if the performance penalty will happen often. What do you think? >> >> 2) If ksh had a way to print without interpreting escapes *and dashes*, >> I'd be glad to add it; do you know one? > > I though