[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#23110: seq apparent bug
From: |
Pádraig Brady |
Subject: |
bug#23110: seq apparent bug |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:57:37 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 |
On 07/04/16 15:40, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
reopen 23110
thanks
On 04/07/2016 11:46 AM, Ruediger Meier wrote:
I understand that this issue is not a bug. But it wouldn't be also not a
bug if coreutils would behave like BSD:
$ seq 1 0 10 ; echo $?
seq: zero increment
1
Ah, okay: as there's prior art in the BSDs [0], the attached
proposes the same for GNU coreutils.
[0] http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-release-7/src/usr.bin/seq/seq.c
<Resend since I don't see this on the lists after a day>
I see FreeBSD has seq since 9.0.
I agree that we should avoid repeating output with "0" STEP.
The patch is fine as is and good to push.
Do we want to deal with these cases spinning the cpu,
in further patches?
seq 1 nan 1
seq 1 .0000000000000000000000000000001 1
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.
cheers,
Pádraig.
- 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 <=
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Paul Eggert, 2016/04/08
- 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