Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:03:05 -0400 From: Parv <parv@pair.com> To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: James Long <stable@museum.rain.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, f-q <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: bzegrep behaviour not consistent with egrep? Message-ID: <20051021000305.GA11603@holestein.holy.cow> In-Reply-To: <200510201711.49382.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <20051020194725.GA10376@ns.museum.rain.com> <20051020205704.GC4000@holestein.holy.cow> <200510201711.49382.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
in message <200510201711.49382.jkim@FreeBSD.org>, wrote Jung-uk Kim thusly... > > On Thursday 20 October 2005 04:57 pm, Parv wrote: > > in message <20051020194725.GA10376@ns.museum.rain.com>, > > wrote James Long thusly... ... > > > $ bzegrep "38436|41640" /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | wc -l > > > 0 > > > $ bzcat /var/log/maillog.0.bz2 | egrep "38436|41640" | wc -l > > > 121 ... > > And more fun, try also "egrep -J| wc", which is similar to the > > 2d case above. > > Can you elaborate the fun, please? In short: will you take "bad choice of words" as an explanation? In somewhat long form: i had read once, twice, or more times in past (most likely in comp.unix.*) that "egrep" was exactly not same as "grep -E", and/or "fgrep" not exactly as "grep -F". The OP's finding reminded me of that even if behaviour difference that was due to an actual bug. - Parv --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051021000305.GA11603>