From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6402 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1996 01:16:38 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by coral.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Dec 1996 01:16:38 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA18858; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:15:40 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:15:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 02:16:37 +0100 (MET) From: Wolfgang Hukriede Message-Id: <199612200116.CAA18685@sally.ifm.uni-kiel.de> To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: zsh-3.0.2 repacked Resent-Message-ID: <"ajRlI.0.Yc4.xYUko"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2602 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Hi again, > > 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. Ok, well yes, sorry. > 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. Hm... that's *very* defensive. :-) Wolfgang.