From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6319 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1996 00:54:51 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by coral.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Dec 1996 00:54:51 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA18476; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 19:54:38 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 19:54:38 -0500 (EST) From: Zoltan Hidvegi Message-Id: <199612200055.BAA03549@bolyai.cs.elte.hu> Subject: Re: zsh-3.0.2 repacked In-Reply-To: <199612200038.BAA18599@sally.ifm.uni-kiel.de> from Wolfgang Hukriede at "Dec 20, 96 01:38:39 am" To: whukriede@ifm.uni-kiel.de (Wolfgang Hukriede) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:55:42 +0100 (MET) Cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Eotvos University, Budapest, Hungary Phone: (36 1)2669833 ext: 2667, home phone: (36 1) 2752368 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL27 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Tmiie.0.dW4.DFUko"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2601 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Wolfgang Hukriede wrote: > I'm sorry, but definitely there's no such alleged bug in the NeXTStep libc. [...] > Then, after: > > setvbuf(shout, NULL, _IOFBF, 0); > > shout->_bufsiz gives ZERO, as well as shout->_base still is ZERO, in other > words, shout is unbuffered. I cannot imagine this should be different with > other libc's. Have you actually checked this? Yes of course. On all other systems I know (and I tesed zsh on 8 different Unix systems) setvbuf ignores the last argument of setvbuf if the second argument is NULL. And conditional compilation is probably has been put there because there were some systems without setvbuf or _IOFBF. And only NeXTStep people complained about slow refresh so I'm pretty sure that NeXTStep is the only system with this behaviour. And I used static buffer instead of passing NULL to make sure that it will really work. I can imagine that some other system's buggy libc would interpret non-zero last argument as if you had given it a buffer at address NULL. Zoltan