From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-2.sys.kth.se (smtp-2.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.160]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBA9WEWr022069 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) by smtp-2.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA0614DCBF for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:32:08 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at kth.se Received: from smtp-2.sys.kth.se ([130.237.32.160]) by mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id mJB-L4Tl-NaH for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:32:07 +0100 (CET) X-KTH-Auth: kristaps [85.8.61.53] X-KTH-mail-from: kristaps@bsd.lv X-KTH-rcpt-to: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Received: from h85-8-61-53.dynamic.se.alltele.net (h85-8-61-53.dynamic.se.alltele.net [85.8.61.53]) by smtp-2.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CE614DC75 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:32:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4D01F396.2070104@bsd.lv> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:32:06 +0100 From: Kristaps Dzonsons User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: roff.c question References: <4CF678F0.6020304@bsd.lv> <20101201212834.GA22990@iris.usta.de> <4CF77A2B.6020702@bsd.lv> <4CF79F45.6080105@bsd.lv> <20101202225019.GD12188@iris.usta.de> <20101203233148.GC28384@iris.usta.de> <4CFBAD23.1030000@bsd.lv> <20101209234504.GF22831@iris.usta.de> In-Reply-To: <20101209234504.GF22831@iris.usta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ingo, >>> 2) We should implement some kind of stack limit >>> and just bail out. >>> >>> OK to commit the following patch, too? > >> Ingo, this is fine by me---conditional upon (1) making the variable >> be part of struct roff > > Hmmm, that doesn't work, struct roff is defined locally in roff.c, > so in main.c it has incomplete type. > >> and not static, > > But that part does work, i have just made it a member of > struct curparse. Ehhh, you know what I mean. :-) No function-scoped statics in the libraries! >> and (2) stating the existence of a limit in roff.7. > > Done, in all brevity. > >> I realise this is putting a lot of technical >> detail in roff.7 (as per last patch response, too) > > Well, the roff language is full of obscure technicalities, > so we can't help that. Hopefully, manual authors will rarely > need information from roff(7) and get away with mdoc(7). > >> but I'm really, really sick of groff's crappy, undocumented >> behaviour and would rather too much than too little. >> >> Can you pop an entry into the TODO to the extent that more rigorous >> checking of looping constructs should be enacted? > > Done. Great---check it in (I only see the TODO parts checked in in the commit mailings)! Thanks and thanks, Kristaps -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv