GNU logs - #9102, boring messages

Message sent to owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-coreutils@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#9102: "timeout 0 FOO" should timeout right away
Resent-From: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-To: owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-CC: bug-coreutils@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:35:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.9102.B.131084486119203 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Message-ID: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:34:02 -0700
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org

"sleep 0" sleeps for zero seconds, and "timeout 0 FOO"
should timeout in zero seconds as well.  Currently,
it doesn't; it times out in an infinite number of seconds.
I see why, from the internals (alarm (0) is a special
call intended to cancel alarms).  However, 'timeout' shouldn't
be exposing those internals to users; it should behave like
'sleep' does, as that's more consistent.

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.427 (Entity 5.427)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#9102: Acknowledgement ("timeout 0 FOO" should timeout right away)
Message-ID: <handler.9102.B.131084486119203.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 9102
X-Gnu-PR-Package: coreutils
Reply-To: 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:35:01 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with GNU.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-coreutils@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
9102: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D9102
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-coreutils@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#9102: "timeout 0 FOO" should timeout right away
References: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN>
Resent-From: "Alan Curry" <pacman-cu@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-To: owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-CC: bug-coreutils@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:09:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.9102.B9102.131085413316950 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: eggert@HIDDEN (Paul Eggert)
Cc: 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Message-ID: <20110716220844.4031.qmail@HIDDEN>
From: "Alan Curry" <pacman-cu@HIDDEN>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:08:44 -0500 (GMT+5)
In-Reply-To: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org

Paul Eggert writes:
> 
> "sleep 0" sleeps for zero seconds, and "timeout 0 FOO"
> should timeout in zero seconds as well.  Currently,
> it doesn't; it times out in an infinite number of seconds.
> I see why, from the internals (alarm (0) is a special
> call intended to cancel alarms).  However, 'timeout' shouldn't
> be exposing those internals to users; it should behave like
> 'sleep' does, as that's more consistent.
> 

What's the difference between running a command with a 0 second timeout
and not running the command at all? It could be killed before it even gets
scheduled.

-- 
Alan Curry

Message sent to owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-coreutils@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#9102: "timeout 0 FOO" should timeout right away
Resent-From: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-To: owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-CC: bug-coreutils@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:29:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.9102.B9102.131085528418606 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Alan Curry <pacman-cu@HIDDEN>
Cc: 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Message-ID: <4E22106B.6020608@HIDDEN>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:27:55 -0700
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN>
	<20110716220844.4031.qmail@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <20110716220844.4031.qmail@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org

On 07/16/11 15:08, Alan Curry wrote:
> What's the difference between running a command with a 0 second timeout
> and not running the command at all? It could be killed before it even gets
> scheduled.

Yes, exactly.  "timeout 0 FOO" should be the limit case for

timeout 1 FOO
timeout 0.1 FOO
timeout 0.01 FOO
timeout 0.001 FOO

That is, its behavior shouldn't diverge markedly from that of
"timeout 1e-300 FOO".

Message sent to owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-coreutils@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#9102: "timeout 0 FOO" should timeout right away
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draig?= Brady <P@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-To: owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-CC: bug-coreutils@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:34:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.9102.B9102.13109060195728 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9102
X-GNU-PR-Package: coreutils
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>
Cc: 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 9102-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B9102.13109060195728
          (code B ref 9102); Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:34:02 +0000
Received: (at 9102) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jul 2011 12:33:39 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1QiQXT-0001UK-2h
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 08:33:39 -0400
Received: from mail1.slb.deg.dub.stisp.net ([84.203.253.98])
	by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <P@HIDDEN>) id 1QiQXR-0001U9-Bs
	for 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 08:33:37 -0400
Received: (qmail 67901 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2011 12:33:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.25?) (84.203.137.218)
	by mail1.slb.deg.dub.stisp.net with SMTP; 17 Jul 2011 12:33:31 -0000
Message-ID: <4E22D61F.2020802@HIDDEN>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:31:27 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draig?= Brady <P@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)

On 16/07/11 20:34, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "sleep 0" sleeps for zero seconds, and "timeout 0 FOO"
> should timeout in zero seconds as well.  Currently,
> it doesn't; it times out in an infinite number of seconds.
> I see why, from the internals (alarm (0) is a special
> call intended to cancel alarms).  However, 'timeout' shouldn't
> be exposing those internals to users; it should behave like
> 'sleep' does, as that's more consistent.

Well my reasoning for having "0" mean don't timeout,
was to have an easy way in scripts to specify no timeout, like:

timeout=0 # none
[ "$platform" = "buggy" ] && timeout=10
timeout $timeout command

I'm unsure whether to make this change.
If we do I guess `timeout` should immediately exit(124).
This change in behavior would need a mention in NEWS anyway.

cheers,
Pádraig.

Message sent to owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-coreutils@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#9102: "timeout 0 FOO" should timeout right away
Resent-From: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-To: owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-CC: bug-coreutils@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:09:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.9102.B9102.131092972310784 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9102
X-GNU-PR-Package: coreutils
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draig?= Brady <P@HIDDEN>
Cc: 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 9102-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B9102.131092972310784
          (code B ref 9102); Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:09:02 +0000
Received: (at 9102) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jul 2011 19:08:43 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1QiWhm-0002nt-Ri
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:08:43 -0400
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.62])
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <eggert@HIDDEN>) id 1QiWhk-0002nc-Fs
	for 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:08:41 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856E739E80F2;
	Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 2659Pz6BiHnd; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (pool-71-189-109-235.lsanca.fios.verizon.net
	[71.189.109.235])
	by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B6AF39E80E1;
	Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E23331E.8010609@HIDDEN>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:08:14 -0700
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN> <4E22D61F.2020802@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <4E22D61F.2020802@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---)

On 07/17/11 05:31, P=C3=A1draig Brady wrote:
> Well my reasoning for having "0" mean don't timeout,
> was to have an easy way in scripts to specify no timeout

That's a good thing to have, but it could be specified in
a different way.  One possibility is the '1' (digit 1) option,
e.g.,  "timeout -1 FOO".  Or if that's too clever, we could
use some other letter for the option.

> If we do I guess `timeout` should immediately exit(124).
> This change in behavior would need a mention in NEWS anyway.

Yes, that'd make sense.

Message sent to owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-coreutils@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#9102: "timeout 0 FOO" should timeout right away
Resent-From: James Youngman <jay@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-To: owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-CC: bug-coreutils@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:01:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.9102.B9102.131111281825945 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9102
X-GNU-PR-Package: coreutils
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draig?= Brady <P@HIDDEN>, 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 9102-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B9102.131111281825945
          (code B ref 9102); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:01:01 +0000
Received: (at 9102) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jul 2011 22:00:18 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1QjIKv-0006kQ-Cc
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:00:18 -0400
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172])
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <james@HIDDEN>) id 1QjIKs-0006kD-UV
	for 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:00:15 -0400
Received: by yxp4 with SMTP id 4so2146419yxp.3
	for <9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.63.16 with SMTP id l16mr4865250yba.306.1311112809034; Tue,
	19 Jul 2011 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.110.15 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E23331E.8010609@HIDDEN>
References: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN> <4E22D61F.2020802@HIDDEN>
	<4E23331E.8010609@HIDDEN>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:00:09 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8OlS8lSm-YOqC-fcUBfsdbjhPns
Message-ID: <CAGwX7676pOyyRLQbpfePSEdcV6mLC+_0eH39wp9bise5yWwPDQ@HIDDEN>
From: James Youngman <jay@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---)

2011/7/17 Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>:
> On 07/17/11 05:31, P=C3=A1draig Brady wrote:
>> Well my reasoning for having "0" mean don't timeout,
>> was to have an easy way in scripts to specify no timeout
>
> That's a good thing to have, but it could be specified in
> a different way. =C2=A0One possibility is the '1' (digit 1) option,
> e.g., =C2=A0"timeout -1 FOO". =C2=A0Or if that's too clever, we could
> use some other letter for the option.

I'm not sure that's worked out so well for tail.   But if we are
looking for an argument indicating we don't want a timeout, the
argument "never" is quite clear.

James.

Message sent to owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-coreutils@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#9102: "timeout 0 FOO" should timeout right away
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draig?= Brady <P@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-To: owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-CC: bug-coreutils@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:21:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.9102.B9102.131111402327609 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9102
X-GNU-PR-Package: coreutils
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: James Youngman <jay@HIDDEN>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>, 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 9102-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B9102.131111402327609
          (code B ref 9102); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:21:01 +0000
Received: (at 9102) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jul 2011 22:20:23 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1QjIeN-0007BG-5E
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:20:23 -0400
Received: from mail1.slb.deg.dub.stisp.net ([84.203.253.98])
	by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <P@HIDDEN>) id 1QjIeL-0007B1-7N
	for 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:20:22 -0400
Received: (qmail 37392 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2011 22:20:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.25?) (84.203.137.218)
	by mail1.slb.deg.dub.stisp.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2011 22:20:15 -0000
Message-ID: <4E260297.7090101@HIDDEN>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:17:59 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draig?= Brady <P@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN>	<4E22D61F.2020802@HIDDEN>	<4E23331E.8010609@HIDDEN>
	<CAGwX7676pOyyRLQbpfePSEdcV6mLC+_0eH39wp9bise5yWwPDQ@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <CAGwX7676pOyyRLQbpfePSEdcV6mLC+_0eH39wp9bise5yWwPDQ@HIDDEN>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)

On 19/07/11 23:00, James Youngman wrote:
> 2011/7/17 Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>:
>> On 07/17/11 05:31, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> Well my reasoning for having "0" mean don't timeout,
>>> was to have an easy way in scripts to specify no timeout
>>
>> That's a good thing to have, but it could be specified in
>> a different way.  One possibility is the '1' (digit 1) option,
>> e.g.,  "timeout -1 FOO".  Or if that's too clever, we could
>> use some other letter for the option.
> 
> I'm not sure that's worked out so well for tail.   But if we are
> looking for an argument indicating we don't want a timeout, the
> argument "never" is quite clear.

I don't follow (pardon the pun).
This will "sleep(0)" between polls which takes 10% of my cpu here:

  tail ---disable -s0 -F nosuch

cheers,
Pádraig.

Message sent to owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-coreutils@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#9102: "timeout 0 FOO" should timeout right away
Resent-From: James Youngman <jay@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-To: owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-CC: bug-coreutils@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:42:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.9102.B9102.131111528829524 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9102
X-GNU-PR-Package: coreutils
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draig?= Brady <P@HIDDEN>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>, 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 9102-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B9102.131111528829524
          (code B ref 9102); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:42:02 +0000
Received: (at 9102) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jul 2011 22:41:28 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1QjIyk-0007g9-Ly
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:41:27 -0400
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com ([209.85.213.44])
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <james@HIDDEN>) id 1QjIyh-0007fv-9v
	for 9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:41:24 -0400
Received: by ywp31 with SMTP id 31so2112943ywp.3
	for <9102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.203.13 with SMTP id a13mr3126230ybg.78.1311115277548; Tue,
	19 Jul 2011 15:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.110.15 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E260297.7090101@HIDDEN>
References: <4E21E7AA.60806@HIDDEN> <4E22D61F.2020802@HIDDEN>
	<4E23331E.8010609@HIDDEN>
	<CAGwX7676pOyyRLQbpfePSEdcV6mLC+_0eH39wp9bise5yWwPDQ@HIDDEN>
	<4E260297.7090101@HIDDEN>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:41:17 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: fvnfj0Qjb1o4-xH4Yg-rpjzQ8wY
Message-ID: <CAGwX766P83ShC9QQ9y0pYPJTEsXYT9+g7Bf_xB5Lg6nShcBggA@HIDDEN>
From: James Youngman <jay@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---)

2011/7/19 P=C3=A1draig Brady <P@HIDDEN>:
> On 19/07/11 23:00, James Youngman wrote:
>> 2011/7/17 Paul Eggert <eggert@HIDDEN>:
>>> On 07/17/11 05:31, P=C3=A1draig Brady wrote:
>>>> Well my reasoning for having "0" mean don't timeout,
>>>> was to have an easy way in scripts to specify no timeout
>>>
>>> That's a good thing to have, but it could be specified in
>>> a different way. =C2=A0One possibility is the '1' (digit 1) option,
>>> e.g., =C2=A0"timeout -1 FOO". =C2=A0Or if that's too clever, we could
>>> use some other letter for the option.
>>
>> I'm not sure that's worked out so well for tail. =C2=A0 But if we are
>> looking for an argument indicating we don't want a timeout, the
>> argument "never" is quite clear.
>
> I don't follow (pardon the pun).
> This will "sleep(0)" between polls which takes 10% of my cpu here:
>
> =C2=A0tail ---disable -s0 -F nosuch

Sorry about the lack of clarity.  I was referring to the mess over
"tail -n 30", "tail -30", "tail +30" etc. and more specifically was
trying to indicate that I didn't think "timeout -0" would be a useful
direction, for that reason.  I'd suggest that Paul's shell snippet
could usefully be:

timeout=3Dnever
[ "$platform" =3D "buggy" ] && timeout=3D10
timeout $timeout command

James.


--=20
This email is intended solely for the use of its addressee, sender,
and any readers of a mailing list archive in which it happens to
appear. =C2=A0 If you have received this email in error, please say or type
three times, "I believe in the utility of email disclaimers," and then
reply to the author correcting any spellings (and, optionally, any
incorrect spellings), accompanying these with humorous jests about the
author's parentage. =C2=A0 If you are not the addressee, you are
nevertheless permitted to both copy and forward this email since
without such permissions email systems are unable to transmit email to
anybody, intended recipient or not. =C2=A0To those still reading by this
point, the author would like to apologise for being unable to maintain
a consistent level of humour throughout this disclaimer. =C2=A0Contents may
settle during transit. =C2=A0Do not feed the animals.

Last modified: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:00:02 UTC

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.