From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18977 invoked from network); 23 May 2000 16:11:11 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 23 May 2000 16:11:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 7906 invoked by alias); 23 May 2000 16:10:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 11540 Received: (qmail 7899 invoked from network); 23 May 2000 16:10:56 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000523161048.ZM1121@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:10:48 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1000523154455.ZM1095@candle.brasslantern.com> Comments: In reply to "Bart Schaefer" "Re: PATCH: Re: Segmentation fault 3.1.7-pre-3/4" (May 23, 3:44pm) References: <200005230831.KAA23545@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> <0FV000FFM9H4SI@la-la.cambridgesiliconradio.com> <1000523154455.ZM1095@candle.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Segmentation fault 3.1.7-pre-3/4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 23, 3:44pm, Bart Schaefer wrote: } Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Segmentation fault 3.1.7-pre-3/4 } } I personally would prefer the following patch, but I haven't committed } it yet. And a good thing, too, as I just realized that it will cause SHTTY to be closed improperly. Sigh. } + } else if (!shout) { } + haso = 1; } + oshout = shout; } + init_shout(); } } What horrible things would happen if `haso' were simply left as 0 here? Then `shout' would remain open, but as it's only pointing to the fd that is already open for SHTTY, and no other part of the code ever tests shout for non-zero-ness (except init_io() which clobbers SHTTY anyway), there doesn't seem to be any problem except the tiny overhead of one extra FILE structure. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com