From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Sep 22 17:45:26 2011 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Sep 2011 21:45:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R6r58-0005QS-IN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:45:24 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R6qJ0-0004L1-AC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:55:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R6qIc-0007VS-Mc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:55:15 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:48286) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R6qIc-0007VO-LD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:55:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:34523) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R6qIb-0004Ke-64 for Bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:55:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R6qIa-0007V3-28 for Bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:55:13 -0400 Received: from sam.nabble.com ([216.139.236.26]:44920) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R6qIZ-0007Qu-Uc for Bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:55:12 -0400 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by sam.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R6qIT-0004st-A9 for Bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:55:05 -0700 Message-ID: <32503840.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean Sun To: Bug-coreutils@gnu.org Subject: sort 8.5 bug? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Nabble-From: sean.x.sun@gmail.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17 X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:45:21 -0400 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: -5.9 (-----) ######################################################### Ubuntu 11.04 2.6.38-11-generic-pae sort --version sort (GNU coreutils) 8.5 Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later . This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Written by Mike Haertel and Paul Eggert. ########################################################## I created two testing files: File_A and File_B. cat File_=E2=80=8BA . BAD. sort File_A . BAD. cat File_=E2=80=8BB .s BAD.s sort File_B BAD.s .s So basi=C2=ADcally, append=C2=ADing a let=C2=ADter after =E2=80=98.=E2=80= =99 would reverse the sort order. That doesn't look quite right. Is there an explanation for this behavior? I've tried the same on a Mac, and their sort (5.93) woks just fine. I've also tried set LC_ALL=3D'C'. Just in case it's a funky locale problem, but didn't make a difference. --=20 View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sort-8.5-bug--tp3250384= 0p32503840.html Sent from the Gnu - Coreutils - Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Sep 22 18:02:15 2011 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Sep 2011 22:02:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R6rLS-0005nt-LR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:02:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R6rLN-0005nd-RA; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:02:11 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8MM1k0s011754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:01:46 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.135] (ovpn-113-135.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.135]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8MM1iRk020621; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:01:44 -0400 Message-ID: <4E7BB048.9070801@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:01:44 -0600 From: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110906 Fedora/3.1.14-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Sun Subject: Re: bug#9580: sort 8.5 bug? References: <32503840.post@talk.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <32503840.post@talk.nabble.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx1.redhat.com id p8MM1k0s011754 X-Spam-Score: -10.3 (----------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control Cc: 9580-done@debbugs.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: -10.3 (----------) tag 9580 notabug thanks On 09/22/2011 02:55 PM, Sean Sun wrote: > So basi=C2=ADcally, append=C2=ADing a let=C2=ADter after =E2=80=98.=E2=80= =99 would reverse the sort order. > That doesn't look quite right. Is there an explanation for this behavio= r? > I've tried the same on a Mac, and their sort (5.93) woks just fine. Thanks for the report, but this is not a bug in sort. Actually, both=20 versions that you tried (8.5 and 5.93) sort in the same way, where the=20 difference is in your choice of locale, and you are hitting this FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/#Sort-does-not-sort-in-normal-= order_0021 Newer coreutils added a --debug option to help you learn why the bug is=20 in your expectations and not in sort (8.13 is current, but --debug has=20 been present since 8.6). So let's use it: $ printf '.\nBAD.\n.s\nBAD.s\n' | sort --debug sort: using `en_US.UTF-8' sorting rules =2E _ BAD. ____ BAD.s _____ .s __ $ printf '.\nBAD.\n.s\nBAD.s\n' | LC_ALL=3DC sort --debug sort: using simple byte comparison =2E _ .s __ BAD. ____ BAD.s _____ Remember, the en_US.UTF-8 locale uses dictionary order collation, which=20 treats punctuation as insignificant, and blends case. That is, 's' and=20 '.s' collate as the same string, and '.s' is larger than 'BAD.' since=20 's' comes later in the alphabet than 'B'. On the other hand, the C locale uses ASCII ordering, where every byte is=20 significant, and '.' sorts before 'B'. > > I've also tried set LC_ALL=3D'C'. Just in case it's a funky locale prob= lem, > but didn't make a difference. Are you sure you used the correct syntax? The way you wrote it, it=20 looks like you tried: $ set LC_ALL=3D'C' But that is neither sh (export LC_ALL=3DC) nor csh (setenv LC_ALL C)=20 syntax. And your problem is absolutely explained by locale, and would=20 indeed be "solved" if you indeed had set LC_ALL=3DC like you meant to do. --=20 Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:27:16 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:24:04 +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