[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: /dev/fd/62: No such file or directory

From: Chet Ramey
Subject: Re: /dev/fd/62: No such file or directory
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:05:21 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0

On 3/28/14, 11:21 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:31:31PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>>     So whether or not to use /def/fd is a build time option?
>> On many commerical Unix systems (which don't have /dev/fd/), Bash
>> falls back to using named pipes.
> ---
>     Right... but this is a case where "normally" /dev/fd is
> there, but because it is a boot script /dev hasn't been mounted
> yet. These are script before runlevel1 or single user and have
> been in a "boot.d" directory.
>     What I'd prefer to see is that bash do what you say at
> runtime, rather being limited to that choice at build time.

The source code is available, and all of the necessary pieces exist.  There
is nothing stopping you from implementing your preference and, if you would
like, sending any patches back upstream.

>     I just checked... it is partly my fault in that I
> upgraded my bash from 4.2 -> 4.3 to get around a limitation in 4.2.
> Am not looking forward to upgrading to 4.4, since both times I've tried,
> autocompletion completely broke and performance was seriously dog'ed even
> in non-debug versions.

It's true that bash-completion did not keep up with changes made over
several years.  Rather than wait for bash-completion to change, I
made some changes to the way bash-4.3 does programmable completion and
sent those out to the debian folks who maintain that package.  Initial
reaction is favorable, so I will be releasing another patch with those
changes soon.

Your experiences are your own, of course, but it's my experience that
performance and memory consumption have improved between bash-4.2 and
bash-4.3.  I periodically do performance testing to verify that.

> Isn't it only things that are like "read xxx < <(cmd)" ? or is there
> something else that uses  process substitution??

Only you can answer questions about where your scripts, and your `system
scripts', use process substitution.

``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    address@hidden    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]