Am 05.10.21 um 21:38 schrieb Jeff King: > On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 08:45:38PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > >> Am 04.10.21 um 10:31 schrieb Jeff King: >>> On Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 07:44:14PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: >>> >>>> b3dfeebb92 (rebase: avoid computing unnecessary patch IDs, 2016-07-29) >>>> added a perf test that calls tac(1) from GNU core utilities. Support >>>> systems without it by reversing the generated list using sort -nr >>>> instead. sort(1) with options -n and -r is already used in other tests. >>> >>> Cute fix. With regular seq(1), this whole thing can become: >>> >>> seq 1000 -1 1 >>> >>> without the extra process, but our test_seq doesn't understand non-1 >>> increments (nor comparisons besides -le). It wouldn't be that hard to >>> teach it, but given that this is the first time we've wanted it, it may >>> not be worth the effort. >> >> Right. The original also allows "seq 1000 1", by the way. Not sure we >> need that either. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "original" here. "seq 1000 1" produces no > output for me (nor does it work with test_seq). I meant the non-shell one, i.e. seq(1). I somehow expected everyone to use the same, but of course there is GNU seq, which has "an omitted INCREMENT defaults to 1 even when LAST is smaller than FIRST" [1] and BSD seq with "When first is larger than last the default incr is -1" [2]. [1] https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/seq.1.html [2] https://man.netbsd.org/seq.1 René
