Warren Young wrote:

On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been
added with Svr4:
Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell?


Heirloom did make quick and dirty ports and then stopped working.

Heirloom e.g. did make the same attempt to port to platforms that may cause
problems with own malloc() implemenetaions:

- add a private malloc for sh internal use based on mmap().

This however caused problems with some Linux distros that have been reported
against my old Bourne Shell port, so I assume the same problems exist with

Heirloom added support for uname -S and for some linux ulimit extensions but
then stopped working on the code after a few months

You still cannot get a working Bourne Shell from heirloom that behaves exactly
like the Solaris shell.

My code added a lot more new features and it converted the code cleanly to use
malloc() from libc. My code also allows all the modifications to be disabled
via #ifdef's. This happens with "osh".

My code is actively maintained and fixed _all_ documented historic bugs, see:


I see that you already wrote up the differences between osh and bosh in an earlier post. Is there a good reason why these comparisons are not on the Schily Tools web page already? :)

The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is
no such maintained web page. Given the fact that Sven Maschek wrote down a lot,
it seems the information is still here.

I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my
portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.


  EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
        joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
  URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions



site design / logo © 2018 Grokbase