From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20241 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -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: 33603 Received: (qmail 21773 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2014 16:56:41 -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 X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=GLe/yVJP c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=FT8er97JFeGWzr5TCOCO5w==:117 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=q2GGsy2AAAAA:8 a=oR5dmqMzAAAA:8 a=-9mUelKeXuEA:10 a=t-IPkPogAAAA:8 a=I2ZK356muIl8_FFq70oA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <141105085605.ZM2602@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:56:05 -0800 In-reply-to: <141104200447.ZM1399@torch.brasslantern.com> Comments: In reply to Bart Schaefer "Re: MacOS X patches" (Nov 4, 8:04pm) References: <8123AE4B-66A3-4789-B0A3-5E5C26DB986D@freebsd.org> <141104200447.ZM1399@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh workers Subject: Re: MacOS X patches MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In case anyone from Apple is reading this thread ... } } > http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/zsh/zsh-61/patches/ The svn-zsh-complete.patch is both obsolete and consequently wrong. It's based on files from 2007-2008 but there was an equivalent and now conflicting patch in 2011. } } The only "interesting" patch I can see is the utmpx one } } Yeah, I'm a bit curious about that one. This sure looks to me to be redundant with the existing lines 95 # ifndef ut_name 96 # define ut_name ut_user 97 # endif which are inside the same #if as the addition in utmpx_ut_user.patch. I can only guess that there was an older version of that patch and they simply updated it without checking whether it was still needed. } } I'm not exactly sure what the arg_zero patch does though. } } Apparently it's somehow possible to invoke the program with argc == 0. } The call to zerr() eventually goes through zwarning() which passes } argzero to nicezputs(), so it has to have a value for that to work. I guess we could pick this one up, though it seems bizarre.