tar bugfix patch n.347 (recoded, version 4)

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 22 December 2005 09:47, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > We can`t change fork() to vfork() trivially, this applets use BSS
> > variables (prezeroed) and for vfork() is not separetelly.
>
> trivially it does not work, fail correctly but hangs in case of success
>
> [roberto at wsraf busybox-1.01_raf]$ ./busybox tar tvzf /tmp/test.tar.gz0
> tar: unexpected end of file
> tar: null size tar archive
>
> [roberto at wsraf busybox-1.01_raf]$ ./busybox tar tvzf /tmp/test.tar.gz
>
> roberto  22515  0.0  0.0   1792   424 ?        S    Dec21   0:00
> tar xvjf /tmp/test.tar.bz2 busybox
> roberto  22516  0.0  0.2   5308  1428 ?        S    Dec21   0:00
>  \_ tar xvjf /tmp/test.tar.bz2 busybox
>
>   a vfork busybox tar is running on my workstation since yesterday...
> ...and it is growing!!!
>   ;-)

What on _earth_ are you talking about?

>   Applaying patch n.4 and restoring original open_transform.c works too:

Use of open_transform.c here is something I need to fix.  (have you seen my 
personal todo list?)

http://www.landley.net/code/todo.txt

>   So at least under the point of view of storage patch n.4 do not add
> anything... Unbelivable... I do *NOTHING*
>   ;-)

http://www.busybox.net/FAQ.html#optimize

>   emh.. why a such thing could happen? Two different branch of the same
> binary which has the *exactly* same file size and different behaviure?

How big are the two different busybox base applets with tar not compiled in?  
I think we shrank the base busybox applet slightly.

>   may be better memory usage benchmark than ps could reveal differences.

Top is actually pretty good, but the raw data for a process's runtime memory 
usage is cat /proc/$PID/maps for the appropriate process $PID.

>   Cheers,

Rob
-- 
Steve Ballmer: Innovation!  Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.