bug-gawk
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug-gawk] File partial overwrite when using join


From: Aharon Robbins
Subject: Re: [bug-gawk] File partial overwrite when using join
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2016 19:29:53 +0200
User-agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 6/20/10

Indeed, this seems to be the cause of the problem.

Thanks,

Arnold

> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 17:51:13 +0100
> From: Wolfgang Laun <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [bug-gawk] File partial overwrite when using join
>
> gawk is not to be blamed.
>
> join requires the files to be sorted on the "key" field.
>
> Cheers
> Wolfgang
>
>
> On 4 February 2016 at 06:56, <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > This is part of an Gawk program I wrote to find new ebuilds (Gentoo
> > equivalent of rpm spec) on an as wanted basis vs using esync and having
> > to check for them immediately.
> > I left all debug and return checking code in so you can see what happens.
> > I'm not certain if this odd behaviour is due to Gawk or join or something
> > else.
> > What happens is this:
> > You run the awk program and instead of printing out:
> >
> > 1 NEW PACKAGES
> > app/zaz [ masked ]
> > 2 REMOVED PACKAGES
> > app/bar
> >
> > You get:
> >
> > 1 NEW PACKAGES
> > 2 REMOVED PACKAGES
> > app/bar
> >
> > Technically you get more output then that, but that'd because this little
> > snippet is trying to be informative. If you uncomment the marked line the
> > case gets even weirder as Gawk overwrites instead of appending to the
> > file. I tried using sync and fflush to no avail.
> > I've attacked all three files so you can try it yourself. You'll
> > need to change the dir variable to reflect your own environment.
> > I also tried nawk but it did the same thing.
> > I'm using Gawk 4.0.2 .
> > Coreutils 8.23 .
> > bash 4.3.42 (my package manager calls it 4.3_p42-r1).
> > For the bandwidth limited the attachments plus this email are about
> > 1.5KiB, the program snippet is only 50 lines.
> >
> > Thanks, David



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]