[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lost output from asynchronous lists
From: |
Stephane Chazelas |
Subject: |
Re: lost output from asynchronous lists |
Date: |
Sun, 2 Nov 2008 08:53:15 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-09-19) |
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 11:21:01PM -0000, Sven Mascheck wrote:
[...]
> >>>> : > stdout > stderr
[...]
> > It fails on old Ultrix sh, which can't redirect the same fd more than once
> > in a single statement. But that platform is relatively dead these days.
>
> More detailed:
>
> - It actually works (also on Ultrix) but it is not robust
> in any traditional Bourne shell (except where fixed by the vendor):
>
> $ echo x y > file1 > file2 # ok, all output in file2
> $ echo x > file1 y > file2 # not ok, all output in file1 instead of file2
[...]
Hi Sven,
is it the order of the redirections that is not respected in
those old Bourne shells, or is it that only some of the
redirections are performed?
Would
: > file1 > file2
or
: > file1 x > file2
create (and truncate) both file1 and file2 in any case?
Would that fork a process, BTW in those old shells?
Maybe a better way would be
exec 3> file1 3> file2 3>&-
(to truncate those files)
--
Stéphane