Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:43:56 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> Cc: Artem 'Zazoobr' Ignatjev <timon@memphis.mephi.ru> Subject: Re: tcsh being dodgy, or pipe code ishoos? Message-ID: <20030625044356.GW57612@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <3EF922BE.4070803@acm.org> References: <20030624183515.A42570@FreeBSD.org> <1056499632.662.7.camel@timon.nist> <3EF922BE.4070803@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Kientzle wrote this message on Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 21:19 -0700:
> Artem 'Zazoobr' Ignatjev wrote:
> >Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> >>Anyone with insight into this?
> >>
> >>(jmallett@big-lizard:~)39% ( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I%
> >>echo + % ) )
> >>1
> >>+ 2
> >>+ 3
> >>(jmallett@big-lizard:~)40% ( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I%
> >>echo + % ) ) | cat
> >>1
> >>+ +2
> >>3
> >
> >last cat is not necessary...
> >And it's more weird than that:
> >
> >>( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% echo -- + % ) )
> >
> >1
> >-- --+ +2
> >3
> >
>
>
> Hmmm... This looks like xargs isn't waiting for the subcommand
> to exit. This looks like 'echo -- + 2' and 'echo -- + 3' are
> running concurrently.
Yes, but the default xargs w/ -n is only one concurrently, which would
mean that tcsh is returning a valid return value before it writes.
I have gotten the 3 to appear before the 2.
> ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% /bin/echo + % )
+ 3
+ 2
(btw, I can see this on sparc w/ tcsh, not bash or sh)
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030625044356.GW57612>