[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#23110: seq apparent bug
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
bug#23110: seq apparent bug |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:45:17 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 |
On 04/08/2016 05:57 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Do we want to deal with these cases spinning the cpu,
in further patches?
seq 1 nan 1
NaN should be an error in any of the operands.
seq 1 .0000000000000000000000000000001 1
For this I suggest the following heuristic. When inferring a format that
would apply to two or more lines of output, try formatting the first two
lines and report an error if they are the same. That would catch the
seeming infinite loop (and at any rate, inadequate output) in this example.
As an aside, I see FreeBSD requires the STEP to be in the right direction
when FIRST != LAST, or it will also exit with error.
GNU will just output nothing in that case.
Outputting nothing sounds better. 'seq 1 0' is like 'for (i = 1; i <= 0;
i++) ...'
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Ruediger Meier, 2016/04/06
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/04/07
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Ruediger Meier, 2016/04/07
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/04/07
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Pádraig Brady, 2016/04/08
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug,
Paul Eggert <=
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Ruediger Meier, 2016/04/08
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Paul Eggert, 2016/04/08
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Ruediger Meier, 2016/04/09
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/04/09
- Message not available
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/04/14
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Pádraig Brady, 2016/04/14
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/04/14