Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: If someone wants to try...
- X-seq: zsh-workers 9369
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: If someone wants to try...
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:02:19 +0100 (MET)
- In-reply-to: Peter Stephenson's message of Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:48:50 +0000
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Peter Stephenson wrote:
> If all the basic things get fixed, I'm tempted to put the whole thing in to
> the source and see what happens. In particular, I'm not sad that
> dupstruct() and all its relatives have vanished. That was the main use for
> having routines that either used the heap or permanent allocation. If this
> means we're now (nearly) in a position to use either explicitly, and hence
> junk all the HEAPALLOC/PERMALLOC stuff, it would make me very happy.
Right
> Problems:
>
> First `[ ... ]' dumps core. Is this the right fix (the middle parse.c
> hunk)? It seems to work. I've added a debugging test for other unhandled
> codes, and a couple of tests to Test/07cond.ztst (strictly these were
> waiting for tests for builtins to come along, but the more the merrier).
Yes, it's ok. I hadn't remembered parsecond().
> Second:
>
> % [[ ( -z foo && -z foo ) || -z foo ]]
> zsh: bad cond code
>
> It looks like the offsets for skipping chunks of `&&' and `||' weren't
> right. The text.c bit did work (e.g. if you embed that test in a function
> and look at it), so I've assumed it's the chunk in evalcond() that's
> wrong. The offsets now seem to be right, although it's possible I've been
> unnecessarily conservative in using variables. I've added a test for this,
> too.
Right again. Dunno how I could forget that the evalcond() would have
changed *state->pc at the point where the new pointer was calculated
(maybe it was because I didn't have to change it).
> Third, the point already noted by Tanaka Akira, but fixed by Sven in 9361,
> which boils down to:
> unset NULLCMD
> print "$(<anyfile)"
> zsh: redirection with no command
>
> Looking more closely, the problem occurs at the test in getoutput() which
> should pick up anything that's a simple read redirection and treat it
> specially. This wasn't happening because there was no WC_END marker at the
> end of the wordcode programme. According to parse.c, WC_END only gets put
> there if the programme is empty, so this is not surprising, hence Sven's
> fix.
>
> But the fact that there's no marker unsettles me from another point of
> view, namely execlist() ploughs on until it something which isn't a
> WC_LIST, and if there's no WC_END marker it can in principle find any old
> rubbish --- it seems usually to be the strings needed by the programme. So
> I would think that adding a WC_END marker unconditionally is the right
> thing (four bytes per programme isn't so much). I'm willing to take higher
> counsel --- which means, if Sven can explain what I've missed about the
> code that makes sure it knows when it's at the end of the programme. I've
> added another redirection test to pick this up. This would make 9361
> unnecessary, although maybe it would still be desirable?
I was tempted to leave it in (yes, I once had it). But then I made
`sure' that execlist() was correct so that we don't need it --
forgetting to change getoutput() then. The important bit is in
exec.c:841. ltype holds the type of the list that was just executed
and all lists `at the end' (of a function, loop, etc) have Z_END.
But of course, 4 bytes per eprog isn't that much.
Bye
Sven
--
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author