sed s/gawk/awk/ scripts/gen_init_ramfs.sh

Signed-off-by Rob Landley <[email protected]>

Use "awk" instead of "gawk".

Signature · 3 lines

There's a symlink from awk to gawk if you're using the gnu tools, but no
symlink from gawk to awk if you're using BusyBox or some such.  (There's a
reason for the existence of standard names.  Can we use them please?)

scripts/gen_initramfs_list.sh +3 -3

@@ -121,9 +121,9 @@
 		"nod")
 			local dev_type=
 			local maj=$(LC_ALL=C ls -l "${location}" | \
-					gawk '{sub(/,/, "", $5); print $5}')
+					awk '{sub(/,/, "", $5); print $5}')
 			local min=$(LC_ALL=C ls -l "${location}" | \
-					gawk '{print $6}')
+					awk '{print $6}')
 
 			if [ -b "${location}" ]; then
 				dev_type="b"

@@ -134,7 +134,7 @@
 			;;
 		"slink")
 			local target=$(LC_ALL=C ls -l "${location}" | \
-					gawk '{print $11}')
+					awk '{print $11}')
 			str="${ftype} ${name} ${target} ${str}"
 			;;
 		*)

Signature · 8 lines

-- 
"Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Quoted 1 line · Rob Landley

Signed-off-by Rob Landley <[email protected]>

Acked-by Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg>

Quoted 7 lines

Use "awk" instead of "gawk".

Signature · 3 lines

There's a symlink from awk to gawk if you're using the gnu tools, but no
symlink from gawk to awk if you're using BusyBox or some such.  (There's a
reason for the existence of standard names.  Can we use them please?)

If the kernel is being compiled on a non-Linux system (eg: legacy Unix) then it is, I guess, possible for awk' and gawk' to offer different features. If the kernel's use of gawk uses GNU extensions then this patch might break things on such a system.

I guess we'll find out...

Quoted 6 lines

If the kernel is being compiled on a non-Linux system (eg: legacy Unix) then it is, I guess, possible for awk' and gawk' to offer different features. If the kernel's use of gawk uses GNU extensions then this patch might break things on such a system.

I guess we'll find out...

Let me propose you to test this as solution, that need no awk, only shell:

p.s. who is going to make alternative to GNU make ? ;D

Quoted 1 line · Oleg Verych

Let me propose you to test this as solution, that need no awk, only shell:

Actually awk is one of the standard Single Unix Specification (version 3) utilities and the kernel build uses it in a number of places, such as arch/alpha/boot/Makefile, drivers/eisa/Makefile, scripts/ver_linux.

Your objection is a bit like saying "and don't use cat". I'm saying don't call cat "gcat" when you just mean plain old cat.

Quoted 1 line

p.s. who is going to make alternative to GNU make ? ;D

Me. Seriously. It's on my todo list, as part of the Firmware Linux project:

http://lwn.net/Articles/215941/

Although as major projects go, it's about fifth down on the list after getting toybox up to speed, writing a proper bash replacement shell, getting tcc to build an unmodified Linux kernel, convincing the uClibc guys to HAVE ANOTHER RELEASE ALREADY (it's been a year and a half, I _sent_ a cake)...

Today, I'm writing a gene2fs that produces streaming output (I.E. it works like tar). It's not done yet...

Quoted 2 lines

Your objection is a bit like saying "and don't use cat". I'm saying don't call cat "gcat" when you just mean plain old cat.

No it's not, really. I don't want to see pipes, fork()s, disk seek, when task can be done without it. I know, what awk is, and i hope it will have its better time.

Quoted 6 lines · Oleg Verych

Quoted 2 lines

Your objection is a bit like saying "and don't use cat". I'm saying don't call cat "gcat" when you just mean plain old cat.

No it's not, really. I don't want to see pipes, fork()s, disk seek, when task can be done without it. I know, what awk is, and i hope it will have its better time.

*shrug* Making the need for "gawk" go away was my goal, and gawk->awk was the minimal change. If you want more than that, I'm not objecting, just not personally interested.

I believe "shift 5" is also SUSv3. :)

Quoted 1 line

I believe "shift 5" is also SUSv3. :)

If you have tested, please send ack or nack to us.

Quoted 3 lines · Oleg Verych

Quoted 1 line

I believe "shift 5" is also SUSv3. :)

If you have tested, please send ack or nack to us.

I have not. I tested the one I sent. Today I'm at a different location than that test environment. All I can try it on here is Ubuntu, and so could you just as easily.

As I said, I'm not particularly interested in a more intrusive solution solving a problem I haven't actually seen. I don't see any obvious reason why it wouldn't work, and yes it would probably also solve my problem, but I still don't see why you think it's "better" than the three byte fix.

Quoted 4 lines

As I said, I'm not particularly interested in a more intrusive solution solving a problem I haven't actually seen. I don't see any obvious reason why it wouldn't work, and yes it would probably also solve my problem, but I still don't see why you think it's "better" than the three byte fix.

Ehhh. "I'm not guilty" issue. Well, fine ;)

If your current system is IA-32, or you have access to one, would you like to test scripts/makelst for me, as i'm seeing `bc' there. But my system have not one, i would like to replace it with shell or awk or whatever. TIA.

Quoted 6 lines · Oleg Verych

Quoted 4 lines

As I said, I'm not particularly interested in a more intrusive solution solving a problem I haven't actually seen. I don't see any obvious reason why it wouldn't work, and yes it would probably also solve my problem, but I still don't see why you think it's "better" than the three byte fix.

Ehhh. "I'm not guilty" issue. Well, fine ;)

"guilty"?

You attempted to hijack my simple observation ("awk is the standard name, gawk is not") into an attempt to replace susv3 standard utilities with extra shell script. This is a separate agenda, and I have _no_ idea why you think I'm obligated to pursue it for you.

The motivation for my patch is taht circa 2.6.12 I didn't need gawk on my system to build; the need for it cropped up fairly recently. This is A) an artificial requirement, B) a regression, C) trivial to fix.

I could also teach busybox awk to be called as "gawk", but awk is the standard name and gawk is not, and gawk can already be called as awk. The _clean_ thing to do is send a patch to get Linux to use the standard name, which I did. This is the minimally intrusive change, and since gawk's install creates an awk symlink it shouldn't affect any existing systems.

That's what I did. I am simply not interested in your attempts to do something else, in hopes of fixing a problem I haven't seen and which I'm not convinced actually exists.

Quoted 4 lines

If your current system is IA-32, or you have access to one, would you like to test scripts/makelst for me, as i'm seeing `bc' there. But my system have not one, i would like to replace it with shell or awk or whatever. TIA.

According to Posix and SUSv3, a development environment can be expected to have bc:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/bc.html

Would you like to try the one in busybox?

The minimal development environment I can build a working system in is 7
packages: linux, gcc, binutils, make, busybox, uClibc, bash. This is not
theoretical: I have actually done this, and I was building systems under this as far back as 2003. (I became busybox maintainer after spending 2 years upgrading busybox to make this _work_. I started by rewriting sed. I didn't _know_ sed at the time, but binutils ./configure used some rather advanced sed scripts to build, so I fixed it. It works now.)

I'm using this to get a minimal native environment on non-x86 target platforms, to minimize the amount of cross compiling I have to do when bootstrapping a new platform. (I submitted an OLS tutorial proposal on this, although I dunno if they're interested.)

In Debian's version it has no bc', while native bc' is producing crap like that:
,-*- bash -*-

|olecom@flower:~$ printf "%u" $(( -1 )) ; echo
|18446744073709551615
|olecom@flower:~$ echo -1 | bc
|-1
|olecom@flower:~$ printf "%u" $(( 0xFF )) ; echo
|255
|olecom@flower:~$ echo FF | bc
|99
|olecom@flower:~$ echo F | bc
|15
|olecom@flower:~$
`-*-

i can't understand the result... I think linux/scripts/makelst may be updated to have sh's version of address calculation ;)

Quoted 16 lines · Oleg Verych

In Debian's version it has no bc', while native bc' is producing crap like that:
,-*- bash -*-

|olecom@flower:~$ printf "%u" $(( -1 )) ; echo
|18446744073709551615
|olecom@flower:~$ echo -1 | bc
|-1
|olecom@flower:~$ printf "%u" $(( 0xFF )) ; echo
|255
|olecom@flower:~$ echo FF | bc
|99
|olecom@flower:~$ echo F | bc
|15
|olecom@flower:~$
`-*-

Quoted 2 lines

i can't understand the result... I think linux/scripts/makelst may be updated to have sh's version of address calculation ;)

No, IMHO that should not be a reason to change anything in the kernel. Just set ibase=16 or read the fine manual:

info '(bc)About Expressions and Special Variables'

,-*- diff snip -*-

|-    t4=`echo $t3 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
|-    t5=`echo $t1 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
|+    t4=`pos_param 1 $t3`
|+    t5=`pos_param 1 $t1`
5     t6=`echo $t4 - $t5 | tr a-f A-F`
6     t7=`( echo  ibase=16 ; echo $t6 ) | bc`

`-*-

I've just noticed, that things on lines 5 and 6 may be optimized.

t7=printf "%lu" $(( 0x$t4 - 0x$t5 ))

On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 06:38:36AM +0000, Oleg Verych wrote:
[snip]

Quoted 9 lines

,-*- diff snip -*-

|-    t4=`echo $t3 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
|-    t5=`echo $t1 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
|+    t4=`pos_param 1 $t3`
|+    t5=`pos_param 1 $t1`
5     t6=`echo $t4 - $t5 | tr a-f A-F`
6     t7=`( echo  ibase=16 ; echo $t6 ) | bc`

`-*-

Quoted 3 lines

I've just noticed, that things on lines 5 and 6 may be optimized.

t7=printf "%lu" $(( 0x$t4 - 0x$t5 ))

%lu does not seem to agree with SuSv3:

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/printf.html
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap05.html

Quoted 11 lines · Rob Landley

Quoted 6 lines · Oleg Verych

Quoted 2 lines

Your objection is a bit like saying "and don't use cat". I'm saying don't call cat "gcat" when you just mean plain old cat.

No it's not, really. I don't want to see pipes, fork()s, disk seek, when task can be done without it. I know, what awk is, and i hope it will have its better time.

*shrug* Making the need for "gawk" go away was my goal, and gawk->awk was the minimal change. If you want more than that, I'm not objecting, just not personally interested.

Yes making uclibc as a bit more work, than rename things ;D. And my change is mainly from optimization point of view (say modern embedded ;)

Quoted 1 line

I believe "shift 5" is also SUSv3. :)

If you have tested, please send ack or nack to us.

Quoted 11 lines · On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:11:46 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]> wrote:

Quoted 1 line · Rob Landley

Signed-off-by Rob Landley <[email protected]>

Acked-by Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg>

Quoted 7 lines

Use "awk" instead of "gawk".

Signature · 3 lines

There's a symlink from awk to gawk if you're using the gnu tools, but no
symlink from gawk to awk if you're using BusyBox or some such.  (There's a
reason for the existence of standard names.  Can we use them please?)

If the kernel is being compiled on a non-Linux system (eg: legacy Unix) then it is, I guess, possible for awk' and gawk' to offer different features. If the kernel's use of gawk uses GNU extensions then this patch might break things on such a system.

I guess we'll find out...

From: Adrian Bunk
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sed s/gawk/awk/ scripts/gen_init_ramfs.sh
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:36:20 +0100

Quoted 15 lines

Quoted 11 lines · On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:11:46 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]> wrote:

Quoted 1 line · Rob Landley

Signed-off-by Rob Landley <[email protected]>

Acked-by Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg>

Quoted 7 lines

Use "awk" instead of "gawk".

Signature · 3 lines

There's a symlink from awk to gawk if you're using the gnu tools, but no
symlink from gawk to awk if you're using BusyBox or some such.  (There's a
reason for the existence of standard names.  Can we use them please?)

Quoted 6 lines

If the kernel is being compiled on a non-Linux system (eg: legacy Unix) then it is, I guess, possible for awk' and gawk' to offer different features. If the kernel's use of gawk uses GNU extensions then this patch might break things on such a system.

I guess we'll find out...

Not only legacy systems.

E.g. in Debian GNU/Linux you must have at least one AWK implementation installed, and awk is a symlink to one of them (both is done by the package manager).

Available AWK implementations are:
- GNU AWK
- Mawk
- the original AWK