From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12631 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2014 16:51:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 32535 Received: (qmail 2708 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2014 16:51:21 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <140406095053.ZM8586@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 09:50:53 -0700 In-reply-to: <20140406170236.6ee6db2b@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: Segfault in hrealloc somewhere between rpromts and syntax highlighting" (Apr 6, 5:02pm) References: <53381887.2040201@physik.tu-berlin.de> <140406000541.ZM14625@torch.brasslantern.com> <20140406170236.6ee6db2b@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: Segfault in hrealloc somewhere between rpromts and syntax highlighting MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 6, 5:02pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: Re: Segfault in hrealloc somewhere between rpromts and syntax hig } } On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 00:05:41 -0700 } Bart Schaefer wrote: } > I'm otherwise not able to reproduce the crash } } I wasn't either, where I've tried it I suppose it's possible that this hunk of my patch is related: > @@ -2795,6 +2795,7 @@ doexpandhist(void) > if (!err) { > zlemetacs = excs; > if (strcmp(zlemetaline, ol)) { > + zle_restore_positions(); > unmetafy_line(); > /* For vi mode -- reset the beginning-of-insertion pointer * > * to the beginning of the line. This seems a little silly, * If the highlight positions were not properly restored, highlighting might reference non-existent parts of the line? But then I would have expected that incorrect highlighting would be a visible symptom in some cases. In any event, Peter, I'd appreciate it if you took a closer look at that particular change (zle_tricky.c) because it's the only one where I'm not certain I was able to repeat the steps that caused the complaint after I made the edit. -- Barton E. Schaefer