[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug |
Date: |
Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:11:46 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) |
Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
> Is 'ls -1' really non-portable, or is the manual missing '1' from its list of
> portable options? Is there any known ls where 'ls -1 | blah' and 'ls | blah'
> behave differently?
I don't know of any, except where users (mistakenly) define their own
"ls". I'd omit the "-1".
> Also, does this attempt to shave processes in the autoconf testsuite look
> valid? [Lest you get a mistaken idea about my abilities, my sed-foo isn't
> that
> strong: I had to copy liberally from the 'info sed' manual.]
Is it really that important to shave a process here? Wow. Personally
I'd stick with "sort -u".
- avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug, Eric Blake, 2008/12/02
- Re: avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug, Eric Blake, 2008/12/02
- Re: avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug, Eric Blake, 2008/12/02
- Re: avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug, Eric Blake, 2008/12/04
- Re: avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug, Paolo Bonzini, 2008/12/06
- Re: avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug, Eric Blake, 2008/12/06
- Re: avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug, Paolo Bonzini, 2008/12/06