From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 7f07c1f4 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 00:59:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 617389B4F1; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:59:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF63F9516B; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:59:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id F335C9516B; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:59:07 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 313 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at minnie.tuhs.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2020 10:59:06 AEST Received: from pmg.in-ulm.de (pmg.in-ulm.de [217.10.8.27]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20CE95165 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:59:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pmg.in-ulm.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg.in-ulm.de (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7750520AEC for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 01:53:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.in-ulm.de (unknown [217.10.8.10]) by pmg.in-ulm.de (Proxmox) with SMTP id 53EEB20A5C for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2020 01:53:50 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 162498 invoked by uid 11025); 4 Jan 2020 00:53:50 -0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2020 01:53:50 +0100 To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org Message-ID: <20200104005350.GA156384@lisa.in-ulm.de> References: <1inMKv-0Km-00@marmaro.de> <20200103140055.XB8iT%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <01d9e48c-2f92-48b9-b4ec-cd29fcfd1fa4@www.fastmail.com> <1inQaG-3N3-00@marmaro.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1inQaG-3N3-00@marmaro.de> X-URL: http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/ Organization: united xpiloteers User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [TUHS] sh: cmd | >file X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Sven Mascheck via TUHS Reply-To: mascheck@in-ulm.de Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 06:18:00PM +0100, markus schnalke wrote: > [2020-01-03 11:03] "Brian Zick" > > I'm curious to know if you have a script you used to prove these correct? > > We have to wait for Sven Mascheck to answer this question. He tested > the different shells. I guess Brian meant Steffen. I have no idea what Steffen meant with "proved correct". (and I believe Gunnar was not motivated to guarantee his heirloom port to compete in production environments against modern shell variants with continued maintenance, yet tried hard that time to find and fix as many bugs as possible; I tried to help him a little bit that time. Just consider how much still had been fixed by Sun even after their SVR4 sh. more corner case bugs to be expected...) BTW, I just typed ":|>file; echo $?" in a running shell and I was particularly interested in the early Bourne shell variants. Unfortunately, I was not able yet to check why the 7thEd sh yields SIGPIPE. And ":|>>" (append) was just motivated by system call tracing (resulting in less file IO), while I tried to find out what was happening at all, before you pointed me to the solution "simple command". Like you I'm interested in the possible motivations for a redirection to be a simple command. Thus Warner and Michael really have a point about using plain redirection only, or in connection with exec, respectively. Sven