Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 22:02:29 +0200 (SAT) From: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: rnordier@nordier.com, syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: strings - elf vs aout Message-ID: <199812072002.WAA29135@ceia.nordier.com> In-Reply-To: <199812071728.KAA02857@mt.sri.com> from Nate Williams at "Dec 7, 98 10:28:41 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote: > > > There's an annoying anomaly in the new version of strings. The traditional > > > version specifically included tabs as valid characters for strings, while > > > the new one doesn't, leading to: > > > > > > $ printf 'My dog has\tno nose' > foo > > > $ strings -aout foo > > > My dog has no nose > > > $ strings -elf foo > > > My dog has > > > no nose > > > $ > > > > > > I run "strings" on lots of files (eg frobnoz.doc), not just executables. > > > This is irritating me specifically in regard to the INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE > > > kernel compile option which now requires "strings -aout" to recover the > > > config file. > > > > > > Shall I devise and commit a fix for this behaviour? > > > > If you want to do this, I'd suggest making it an option. Current > > standards, such as the Single UNIX Specification, apparently regard a > > printable string as 4 or more isprint(3) chars followed by '\n' or > > '\0'. > > Then 'strings' for ELF is broken, since \t is not a newline of end of a > string, and Steven's comments are valid. Reverting to the traditional approach would be a double-step from strict SUS conformance, as well as a single step away from standard GNU binutils behavior. However, if the consensus is that these issues are of little importance or relevance, I wouldn't object particularly. -- Robert Nordier To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812072002.WAA29135>