From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-1.sys.kth.se (smtp-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.175]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8KE5hXk028292 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) by smtp-1.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3231557D3 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:05:38 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at kth.se Received: from smtp-1.sys.kth.se ([130.237.32.175]) by mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 8q4TLrNQVB7T for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:05:37 +0200 (CEST) X-KTH-Auth: kristaps [193.10.49.5] X-KTH-mail-from: kristaps@bsd.lv X-KTH-rcpt-to: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Received: from [172.16.18.84] (unknown [193.10.49.5]) by smtp-1.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CEA154136 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:05:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E789DB0.10909@bsd.lv> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:05:36 +0200 From: Kristaps Dzonsons User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110820 Icedove/3.1.12 X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: TERMP_NOLPAD r.i.p. References: <20110918161317.GE29692@iris.usta.de> <4E765AFE.9070302@bsd.lv> <20110919213939.GA19736@iris.usta.de> <4E77BB0F.4060602@bsd.lv> <4E78751D.6040700@bsd.lv> <20110920121426.GB13269@iris.usta.de> <4E788668.2060502@bsd.lv> <20110920133435.GD13269@iris.usta.de> In-Reply-To: <20110920133435.GD13269@iris.usta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I have no idea why this pops up only now, but let's fix it > anyway. > > The problem is that groff_hdtbl(7) is doing something like > > .de OUCH > .TP > .BI > .. > .OUCH > > tricking the .TP macro and its *next-line* head argument > onto the *same* input line. So .TP is not allowed to assume > that a head argument being on the same line is indeed a same-line > argument. > > I don't see any other similar case in this source file, > and i don't see any regressions. > > OK? > Ingo > > > P.S.: > Of course, the fix only fixes the segfault. > This raises a more serious question: > In the view of macros, our use of the source line > for semantic purposes is fundamentally broken. > We do that at several places. > > P.P.S.: > Mandoc is definitely not the right tool to process groff_hdtbl(7), > but at least it shouldn't segfault. Ingo, I agree on all [P]+S's and note that this fixes the assertion. I'm now able to run through all manuals in all base BSDs without any errors. Thanks again! Kristaps -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv