[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Incorrect / Inconsistent behavior with nameref assignments in functi

From: Binarus
Subject: Re: Incorrect / Inconsistent behavior with nameref assignments in functions
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 07:45:44 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0

Thank you very much for your effort, testing and support!

On 29.08.2020 01:46, Koichi Murase wrote:
> 2020-08-28 22:04 Binarus <lists@binarus.de>:
>> Description:
>> ------------
>> Under certain circumstances, assignments of namerefs to local variables
>> in functions behaves in a way which makes namerefs completely useless.
>> Furthermore, the behavior is not consistent.
> This is actually not related to namerefs and has already been fixed in
> Bash 5.1 and the devel branch.  Think about the following codes:
>   a=1; f1() { local a=$a; local; }; f1
>   a=2; f2() { local -a a=("$a"); local; }; f2
> The results for `f1' are the same for all the Bash versions
> 2.0..devel, but the results for `f2' varies in versions.  Here is the
> summary of the results from the different versions of Bash:
> - 2.0..3.0: f1: a=1, f2: a=([0]="1")
> - 3.1:      f2: a=1, f2: a=([0]="")
> - 3.2..4.2: f1: a=1, f2: a=([0]="1")
> - 4.3..5.0: f1: a=1, f2: a=([0]="")
> - 5.1..dev: f1: a=1, f2: a=([0]="1")

This is very interesting. I never have written code like that and
therefore had my problem not before making heavy use of namerefs. So I
have tested my code in three different bash versions which all are buggy ...

I am surprised that a bug of such severity could survive several years.
I don't know when 4.3 came out, but my version of 4.4 is from 2016, and
5.1 is not out yet, so the bug survived at least 4 years (not taking
into account devel or beta versions, which are not an option for most

> I checked the detailed changes.  The behavior of `f2' in 3.1 was
> reported as a bug in the following thread.
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2006-05/msg00025.html
> It was fixed in 8b35878f (commit bash-20060504 snapshot).  However,
> the bug seems to be introduced again in 36eb585c (commit bash-20121221
> snapshot).  This regression has been reported at
>   https://savannah.gnu.org/support/index.php?109669
> Finally, it was again fixed in c6c7ae81 (commit bash-20200427
> snapshot).

Thank you very much again for that invaluable information! I am
wondering when debian will include bash 5.1. It looks like debian
testing and debian unstable are on bash 5.0, so it will probably take
several years.

Best regards,


reply via email to

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