Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: V01zmodload fails on Cygwin
- X-seq: zsh-workers 37766
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "zsh-workers@xxxxxxx" <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: V01zmodload fails on Cygwin
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:22:44 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brasslantern-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments:references:to:subject :mime-version:content-type; bh=LOH3FvLgCiIRdP6XNXC/8YsbSHe4PnFQZMxRvgdXkhM=; b=1jmYJrXjVb2V/j79LA17une9vASiGanEDLYRx8QmNDjjobGziGcYLn4FS4jaz5hW4M QvI14msMkO5b5wOGuyQ0Fp91MJ6ME4l6FtMsNaYeXSzDSO9V1WhdCoi6rbOftxkVMnjg /Y5HqyNNRO3Cs3AOzMqQmgssFxdUlTjG875FJjloCrHYF47bzbiSxB29fq60viBJIAoW U6E/xww+D80IvdOvN5Oivo3NggvcfN+dinXIUM53Dq/mkh6v2gUrzGAdtQynNw9ndLDb M5VXguzYaBGlPV0K4UeZz2A1UjJ1Zlyg5uufgPYDd9KvNTqkESGFgU7gewUhh2vHsdEM dHSA==
- In-reply-to: <F46CF6DC-AC2E-4C64-B94E-E48B3FB68141@kba.biglobe.ne.jp>
- 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: <F46CF6DC-AC2E-4C64-B94E-E48B3FB68141@kba.biglobe.ne.jp>
On Jan 24, 8:10pm, Jun T. wrote:
}
} V01zmodload.ztst fails on my Cygwin (on 64 bit Windows7):
} CYGWIN_NT-6.1 2.4.0(0.293/5/3) 2016-01-15 16:16 x86_64
} (probably the latest 64bit cygwin)
}
} So it seems some symbols from libzsh-5.2-dev-1.dll also exists
} in param_private.dll, and gethashnode2 is one of those symbols:
Interesting. gethashnode2 should be declared external, so it should
be resolved for param_private.dll at link time. Seems to have to do
with whether the external function is *called* vs. merely referenced
by name?
} The following patch seems to work, but I hope someone who knows
} cygwin better to confirm/improve the patch.
It's too bad the node functions are direct members of the hashtable
struct rather than encapsulated the way the parameter GSUs are. In
the absence of an entire data structure to save/restore, your patch
looks fine. Should probably save/restore ->getnode as well, just
for completeness.
Do you want to commit or should I?
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author