Re: /dev/fd/62: No such file or directory

[Linda Walsh]

Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:31:31PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> >         So whether or not to use /def/fd is a build time option?
>
> On many commerical Unix systems (which don't have /dev/fd/), Bash
> falls back to using named pipes.
---
        Right... but this is a case where "normally" /dev/fd is
there, but because it is a boot script /dev hasn't been mounted
yet. These are script before runlevel1 or single user and have
been in a "boot.d" directory.

        What I'd prefer to see is that bash do what you say at
runtime, rather being limited to that choice at build time.

        I just checked... it is partly my fault in that I
upgraded my bash from 4.2 -> 4.3 to get around a limitation in 4.2.
Am not looking forward to upgrading to 4.4, since both times I've tried,
autocompletion completely broke and performance was seriously dog'ed even
in non-debug versions.

Both of those were prerelease 4.3's, so I decided I'd hold off for
a bit, but from what I saw others ran into similar problems later
on and several other "minor syntax" changes went
in which means it is likely I'll hit some of them given
the large number of scripts...like this one -- an edge case,
where bash bash is relying on /dev/fd -- which is true for a running
system, but doesn't fall-back dynamically, which can cause rare
probs in boot scripts and I'm not seeing where process substitution
is used.

Isn't it only things that are like "read xxx < <(cmd)" ? or is there
something else that uses  process substitution??