Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: Re: Segmentation fault 3.1.7-pre-3/4
- X-seq: zsh-workers 11538
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Segmentation fault 3.1.7-pre-3/4
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:44:54 +0000
- In-reply-to: <200005230831.KAA23545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <0FV000FFM9H4SI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <200005230831.KAA23545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <0FV000FFM9H4SI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On May 23, 10:31am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: PATCH: Re: Segmentation fault 3.1.7-pre-3/4
}
} Bernd Eggink wrote:
}
} > This gives a seg fault if executed in a script:
} >
} > read -q "REPLY?hm: "
} >
} > Happens with pre-3 and pre-4, not with pre-1.
}
} Oh, look Bart, there's the reason to not always use shout (11036).
Hmm, why did I think that SHTTY != -1 mean that shout was nonzero?
I personally would prefer the following patch, but I haven't committed
it yet.
Index: builtin.c
===================================================================
@@ -4970,6 +4970,10 @@
oshout = shout;
init_shout();
}
+ } else if (!shout) {
+ haso = 1;
+ oshout = shout;
+ init_shout();
}
/* We should have a SHTTY opened by now. */
if (SHTTY == -1) {
On May 23, 10:10am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Segmentation fault 3.1.7-pre-3/4
}
} Sven wrote
} > But with zle not loaded, the
} >
} > zsh -c "read -q '?Can you see this? '" < /dev/null >& /dev/null
} >
} > from 11036 doesn't show the prompt (but at least it doesn't segv
} > anymore). Is it right or wrong? Do we have to work around it?
}
} Seems to me that after doing your damnedest *not* to have the prompt shown,
} you don't want it. `read -q' is documented as always reading from
} the terminal, and the prompt as printing on stderr. I haven't checked
} that's what's actually going on, but it's consistent.
It's confusing. If I've written a script and embedded a "read -q" in it
somewhere, chances are I expect it to display the prompt and not just
hang mysteriously until the user happens to touch the keyboard. It should
not be necessary to always write something like
[[ -t 2 ]] && read -q '?Can you see this? ' 2>/dev/tty
because the shell knows much better than I do whether there *is* a tty.
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author