[illumos-Developer] webrev: reimplementation of od

[Garrett D'Amore]

So after an *extremely* long and, honestly, rather draining,
conversation with Joerg on the phone, I finally got the information
needed to understand what Joerg was talking about.

There was one output format that was missing ll, and there was support
missing for a horrible legacy command line option thing surrounding the
"offset_string".  (So my bad for completely glossing over that section
of the spec.  I think it was so hideous that my brain just completely
blocked it out.  I really feel stupid for missing the legacy syntax.)

I've implemented fixes for the above, and tested.  

A webrev is here:

http://mexico.purplecow.org/gdamore/webrev/od

Specifically note od.c lines 719 to 775 that were added.

I do *not* intend to wait for Joerg's feedback on this, because frankly
the feedback costs way way too much of my time to obtain.

I am having them reviewed, and will happily fix any bugs that anyone
else finds (especially if they provide sufficient description of the
problem), but at this point there are no reasonable alternatives ready
for integration, and I'm interested in moving *forward*.

I've done as exhaustive testing as I can think of.  Of course, the
testing may be incomplete if I've missed something else in the
specification.  As far as I can tell, I haven't.

	- Garrett


On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 09:35 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 18:28 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > "Garrett D'Amore" <garrett at nexenta.com> wrote:
> 
> > You cannot test everything if a program is bejond a certain complexity, you 
> > still can get a sufficient test coverage by testing the things that are 
> > expected to cause problems. This is how I get fast results.
> 
> And, I've tested as much as I can, I think.  Roland has been testing my
> program too!
> 
> > 
> > Your "od" will create a lot of problems if it is going to replace the current 
> > implementation as it does not implement everything that is in the POSIX 
> > standard. 
> 
> You've said this before.  I don't agree, but will allow that there may
> be something I've overlooked.  I don't see it.  So if you want me to
> take action, please provide *SPECIFIC* details.  What part of POSIX is
> missing?
> 
> Your comment as it stands is *TOTALLY USELESS* to me.
> 
> The entire rest of your message is completely pointless ranting and I'm
> not even going to bother replying to it.
> 
> 	- Garrett
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Developer mailing list
> Developer at lists.illumos.org
> http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer