Re: CVS commit: src/tests/util/sh

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Jun 6,  7:18pm, dholland-sourcechanges%netbsd.org@localhost (David Holland) 
wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/tests/util/sh

| On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 07:11:05PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
|  > On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 08:08:57AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
|  >  > | If it's more important that the nightly test runs come up clean than
|  >  > | that it actually check for correct behavior so sh gets fixed, the test
|  >  > | script should at least document what the correct behavior is. I have
|  >  > | done this much, although I'm inclined to think the changes should be
|  >  > | reverted entirely.
|  >  > 
|  >  > Please show me a shell implementation where those tests work, and then
|  >  > I will accept that reverting them is TRT. I personally cannot find one.
|  >  > Also all the tests now behave consistently in ksh, bash, and ash so I
|  >  > am inclined to believe that they are correct.
|  > 
|  > The last time I tried, the behavior of sh, ksh, and bash diverged
|  > substantially on some of them. Others, yes, it's posix on one side and
|  > all extant implementations on the other... this is why I was trying to
|  > secure a consensus, but that hasn't happened; it's too fiddly and
|  > consequently ~nobody cares enough to wade into the gory details.
| 
| Ok, right now ksh diverges from sh on 32 of 75 cases, including
| several of the ones you changed. bash diverges on 3.
| 
| Anyway, the test script now at least documents what the deal is, so
| I'm ok with leaving it until we can reach some conclusions on the
| proper behavior.

Our ksh and GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64--netbsd)
behave exactly like our sh. Which bash and ksh did you use?

christos