From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Dec 16 03:15:03 2010 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Dec 2010 08:15:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PT8zP-00015E-CP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:15:03 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PT8zN-00014V-1z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:15:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PT95S-0000J4-Nf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:21:19 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:47554) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PT95S-0000J0-JH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:21:18 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58802 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PT95P-0003hT-PJ for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:21:17 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PT95O-0000II-PU for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:21:15 -0500 Received: from mx.meyering.net ([82.230.74.64]:37980) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PT95O-0000I6-Jh for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:21:14 -0500 Received: by rho.meyering.net (Acme Bit-Twister, from userid 1000) id DF8016006A; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:21:12 +0100 (CET) From: Jim Meyering To: Paul Eggert Subject: Re: coreutils snapshot time? In-Reply-To: <4D09C7B3.50805@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:02:59 -0800") References: <87r5diwwuu.fsf@meyering.net> <4D09C7B3.50805@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:21:12 +0100 Message-ID: <87vd2uuo07.fsf@meyering.net> Lines: 28 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Spam-Score: -5.7 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: bug-coreutils@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -5.7 (-----) I'd like to make a snapshot soon, and asked Paul how his sort work was coming. He replied: > 1 There's still a bug with sort -m -o f f; it can dump core > despite my recent patch there. I have a fix for this and > will push it (+ test case) shortly. > > 2 After further thinking about it, I now realize why there > used to be a reference count for process-IDs. It's possible > that two or more temp files are associated with the same process ID. > The old code was designed to detect this, but I don't think it worked. > The new code that I checked in a couple of days ago was not designed > to detect this (I considered the scenario, but incorrectly concluded > that it wouldn't lead to a problem), and I now know it doesn't work. > I have a fix in mind and will work on it next. > > 3 The sort --compress/hang problem. It's conceivable this is the > same bug as (2), but most likely it's different. > > None of these bugs are pressing: (1) has been there for ages > and (2) and (3) are present only if --compress is used, which > isn't common. So I don't think it matters much whether these > fixes are in the next version. I'd like (1) to go in at least, > and I think I can fix (2) in a day or two; dunno about (3). Thanks! I'll wait a little, in case a fix for (2) is forthcoming. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Dec 16 03:31:45 2010 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Dec 2010 08:31:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PT9FY-0001Rg-MP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:31:44 -0500 Received: from mx.meyering.net ([82.230.74.64]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PT9FW-0001RP-M8 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:31:43 -0500 Received: by rho.meyering.net (Acme Bit-Twister, from userid 1000) id 0544A6006A; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:37:59 +0100 (CET) From: Jim Meyering To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: notabug In-Reply-To: (GNU bug Tracking System's message of "Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:16:02 +0000") References: <87vd2uuo07.fsf@meyering.net> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:37:59 +0100 Message-ID: <87pqt2un88.fsf_-_@meyering.net> Lines: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -5.7 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -5.7 (-----) tags 7652 notabug close 7652 thanks From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:24:00 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:24:03 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator