Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: subtle `echo' bug
- X-seq: zsh-workers 21390
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: subtle `echo' bug
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:31:55 +0000
- In-reply-to: <200506271003.j5RA31Uw007298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <20050614172738.GL4685@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200506142212.24133.arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxxx> <1050615002844.ZM7767@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200506150910.j5F9AEFa009630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200506151356.j5FDunra015702@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1050615153214.ZM10443@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200506151549.j5FFn94K018908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1050615163946.ZM10520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200506271003.j5RA31Uw007298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Jun 27, 11:03am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} Are we going to do this?
I don't see any harm in it, but I have one last question ...
In looking at the code earlier in this function, I find that it's zsh
that does (the equivalent of) val |= 0200 before testing (val & 0200).
This makes me wonder if we should be using (val & ~0200) rather than
WTERMSIG(val) here.
} + if ((val & 0200) && inforeground == 1 &&
} + (WTERMSIG(val) == SIGINT || WTERMSIG(val) == SIGQUIT)) {
It *probably* doesn't matter either way ...
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author