Path: csiph.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: ulimit call lists invalid options
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:59:50 +0700
Lines: 43
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.243.1564477252.1985.bug-bash@gnu.org>
References: <5D3FF5DE.50703@tlinx.org> <5D3FB223.5000601@tlinx.org> <23361.1564463374@jinx.noi.kre.to> <22286.1564477190@jinx.noi.kre.to>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1564477253 25258 209.51.188.17 (30 Jul 2019 09:00:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu
Cc: bug-bash <bug-bash@gnu.org>
To: L A Walsh <bash@tlinx.org>
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <5D3FF5DE.50703@tlinx.org>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:3c8:9009:181::2
X-BeenThere: bug-bash@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell <bug-bash.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-bash@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID: <22286.1564477190@jinx.noi.kre.to>
X-Mailman-Original-References: <5D3FF5DE.50703@tlinx.org> <5D3FB223.5000601@tlinx.org> <23361.1564463374@jinx.noi.kre.to>
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:15279

    Date:        Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:46:38 -0700
    From:        L A Walsh <bash@tlinx.org>
    Message-ID:  <5D3FF5DE.50703@tlinx.org>

  | It isn't a judgment call to list only the options it supports on a given
  | system.  I'd think that would be clear.

That's an opinion, and that makes it something which everyone
is entitled to their own view of.

  | If not at runtime, then
  | certainly when the bash binary is built,

That would be the way to do it, if it was to be done at all.

But knowing which options the shell supports (if you looked at,
and compared, the bash supported options for my system, from the
ksh93 supported options, in the followup message I sent, you'll
see that ksh93 supports a whole bunch of limits that bash does not)
is not useless either.

As indicated in the 2nd message, to find out which ones work on
your system, use "ulimit -a".

And then be gradeful that bash doesn't do either ...

jinx$ dash -c 'ulimit -/'
dash: 1: ulimit: Illegal option -/

or

jinx$ ksh93 -c 'ulimit -/'
ksh93: ulimit: -/: unknown option
Usage: ulimit [-HSalimits] [limit]

(nb: in the latter, ksh93 is not saying that 'l' 'i' 'm' 'i' 't' and 's'
are the valid options...)

Bash at leasts suggests what the options it supports might be.

kre