28 Sep
2017
28 Sep
'17
5:57 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:44:20PM +0100, Derek Fawcus wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:34:28AM -0400, Chet Ramey
wrote:
Or not - given that macOS, using an older bash already used 255:
$ set|fgrep VERSION
BASH_VERSION='3.2.57(1)-release'
$ lsof -p $$|fgrep CHR
bash 6843 derek 0u CHR 16,10 0t554677 701 /dev/ttys010
bash 6843 derek 1u CHR 16,10 0t554677 701 /dev/ttys010
bash 6843 derek 2u CHR 16,10 0t554677 701 /dev/ttys010
bash 6843 derek 255u CHR 16,10 0t554677 701 /dev/ttys010
DF
Yes, that changed in 2007 based on bug reports
you filed while working at Cisco.
So fd 255 is my fault? :-) 
28 Sep
28 Sep
6:04 p.m.
New subject: UNIX of choice these days?
On 9/28/17 1:57 PM, Derek Fawcus wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:44:20PM +0100, Derek Fawcus
wrote:
No, the opening of /dev/tty to get the controlling terminal instead of
assuming you can use fd 2 for it is your fault. :-)
Bash always used an unused fd close to the fd limit to save the handle.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU chet(a)case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:34:28AM -0400, Chet
Ramey wrote:
Or not - given that macOS, using an older bash already used 255: Yes, that changed in 2007 based on bug reports
you filed while working at Cisco.
So fd 255 is my fault? :-)
2402
days inactive
2402
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Chet Ramey -
Derek Fawcus