From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 24 21:47:07 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 931)
	id 2A75A37B401; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:47:07 -0500
From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org>
To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20030624234707.A59666@FreeBSD.org>
References: <20030624183515.A42570@FreeBSD.org>
	<1056499632.662.7.camel@timon.nist> <3EF922BE.4070803@acm.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <3EF922BE.4070803@acm.org>;
	from kientzle@acm.org on Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:19:10PM -0700
X-Title: Code Maven
X-Towel: Yes
X-Negacore: Yes
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost: juli pwned teh intarweb
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: "Tim J. Robbins" <tjr@FreeBSD.org>
cc: Artem 'Zazoobr' Ignatjev <timon@memphis.mephi.ru>
Subject: Re: tcsh being dodgy, or pipe code ishoos?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:47:07 -0000

* Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> [ Date: 2003-06-24 ]
	[ w.r.t. Re: tcsh being dodgy, or pipe code ishoos? ]
> 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.

How about this, it essentially says that in the not -P case, no procs
may be unwaited-on, whereas otherwise we say that 1 may be unwaited-on..

Thanx,
juli.

%%%
Index: xargs.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/usr.bin/xargs/xargs.c,v
retrieving revision 1.54
diff -d -u -r1.54 xargs.c
--- xargs.c     13 Jun 2003 17:05:41 -0000      1.54
+++ xargs.c     25 Jun 2003 04:45:39 -0000
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@
                /* 1 byte for each '\0' */
                nline -= strlen(*ep++) + 1 + sizeof(*ep);
        }
-       maxprocs = 1;
+       maxprocs = 0;
        while ((ch = getopt(argc, argv, "0E:I:J:L:n:oP:pR:s:tx")) != -1)
                switch(ch) {
                case 'E':
%%%
-- 
juli mallett. email: jmallett@freebsd.org; efnet: juli;