Subject: Re: discrepency beteen /bin/echo and builtin echo of /bin/sh
To: David Laight <email@example.com>
From: Rick Kelly <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/10/2002 19:59:56
David Laight said:
>On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 05:01:25PM -0500, Eric Gillespie wrote:
>> Well there you go; the standard changes again. That's why this
>> entire discussion is purely academic from my point of view; you
>> have to use printf if you're doing anything other than 'echo "foo"'
>> or 'echo "foo $bar"'. echo is completely unreliable.
>output of echo "foo $bar" depends on what bar contains...
It seems like most shells out there accept "echo -n".
SunOS 4.x sh and csh
ksh88 and ksh93 - most platforms except Solaris - NetBSD/i386 ksh93 binary
accepts "echo -n"
SCO Openserver and UNIXWare accept echo -n.
SunOS 4.1.x accept echo -n.
>(fixed a buffer overflow problem in printf at the same time,
>printf "%1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111d\n" 42
>generates a core dump.)
That's cool that it is fixed.
Rick Kelly email@example.com www.rmkhome.com