Re: some procps--n4-4.0.0 fixes

Anyway, there are four new tests for AIX fields (correct, improper, missing
and unknown)

On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 at 14:43, Craig Small <[email protected]> wrote:

> Very strange, I'm seeing something different. For 3.3.17 yes I got those
> strange results.
> For 4.0.0 it just doesn't recognise the field at all. Running ps from the
> newlib repository gives the correct behaviour
>
> $ ps -o "%p"
> error: unknown user-defined format specifier "%p"
>
> Usage:
>  ps [options]
>
>  Try 'ps --help <simple|list|output|threads|misc|all>'
>   or 'ps --help <s|l|o|t|m|a>'
>  for additional help text.
>
> For more details see ps(1).
> $ ps/pscommand -o "%p"
>     PID
>    5127
>   97595
>
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 at 14:32, Jim Warner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/22 10:47 PM, Craig Small wrote:
>> > Could you give me a specific example of this issue it fixed, I think it
>> > was something like ps -o %%blah or something like that but that
>> specific
>> > example I get a (correct) error message.
>>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> Without that patch, when I try:
>>       ps/pscommand -o "%p %G{"
>>
>> I get:
>>           PID GROUP   {
>>         12793 warnerjc{
>>         14486 warnerjc{
>>
>> Or if I do:
>>       ps/pscommand -o "%p %%a"
>>
>> that yields:
>>           PID %a
>>         12793 %a
>>         14497 %a
>>
>> But with the patch I get these instead:
>>       error: improper AIX field descriptor
>>       error: missing AIX field descriptor
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>