Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: 5.0.9 eventually...?
- X-seq: zsh-workers 36015
- From: Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: 5.0.9 eventually...?
- Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:50:20 +0200
- Cc: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=c0xPmfjrBCNe/40L1btP0w1SE+mpupsOPu3YHZgHfho=; b=HRDKg3z2nO2N+xTyOzgpuDmgTjpEdpdn2mvW2WhZiB2H4mejTTnH9T8o48mPY7VfX2 WfY9/Bq4VbS7Dgx8yz+ycKlNxyVxI7IEOHIylwIwykBEF4yOKQFJMFlyi4w3BchmY6yc NeezMUPLmEHBIpiz+wb6UhqgpKKbEytuETaXPPo0XR5LHPybgYzPA6TX+C3UH9FFciJ+ 3EBAoJ2VDzT8U+zOaH95kCeo3B1tGoCDMeLgV9TPAfq9mJXCM22LGf0DNts5rFHJLxtT IdYX+00/ne8kI0YA7Ez/GJw80L06atSgsegctX3GMMRf9Micm6U2/QuvmRNWkgYMexNu Pb8Q==
- In-reply-to: <CAH+w=7aqD4D+iAbFV4-xv+8HgAF2Q4rdEoov2z0+A96Ycf59Eg@mail.gmail.com>
- List-help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <20150808200521.4e3c85d1@ntlworld.com> <CAH+w=7aqD4D+iAbFV4-xv+8HgAF2Q4rdEoov2z0+A96Ycf59Eg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Bart Schaefer
<schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2015 12:11 PM, "Peter Stephenson" <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone (including Bart, obviously) with a feel for what's the state of
>> affairs with regards to immediate problems?
>
> Nothing has been done about the infinite loop with "wait" printing the job
> status. After pointing out that ksh and bash differ in wait
> implementation, I got distracted by the signal handing deadlock thread.
>
> I have what I think is a comprehensive patch for that signal issue but am
> AFK today (writing this message on my phone). Will post later.
>
> I posted a sort-of patch for the "typeset -T" crash, but I agree that it is
> not the ideal solution.
As far as I could tell, the code in question has been there since 2005
so it's not a recent regression, if that's a factor.
> That's as much as I'm aware of from memory.
Same, and glancing through the threads, I can't see anything else
important either.
All the (known) $(( ))-related problems were fixed, right?
--
Mikael Magnusson
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author