From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18274 invoked from network); 3 Nov 1999 08:04:12 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 3 Nov 1999 08:04:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 5065 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 1999 08:04:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8505 Received: (qmail 5058 invoked from network); 3 Nov 1999 08:04:06 -0000 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:04:04 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199911030804.JAA00408@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:44:27 +0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: completion cleanup Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Nov 1, 8:50am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > } Subject: Re: PATCH: completion cleanup > } > } Ohhh, noooo! > } > } I sent the wrong uu-file. I'm so sorry. And ashamed. Ahem. > > The wrong diff (8475) contained a hunk to have compinit call zmodload on > the parameter and zleparameter modules. This latest one (8478) does not > include that hunk. Is it needed or not? It is not needed since 8440 made them be autoloaded. However, after adding the `funcstack' parameter, I made the parameter module be loaded in `compinit' because I wanted to make sure that this parameter is always correct (if the module is loaded when there are already functions currently being executed, these functions will be missing from `funcstack'). So, Felix Rosencrantz wrote: > I started pulling zsh from Tanaka's CVS repository, and was seeing a few > undefined functions due to the separation of all the completion code. > So I started compiling without dynamic loading support, to find these > problems at link time rather than run time. I hope 8490 already fixed these... > Once I got a good build, I found that the compinit function fails > because it calls "zmodload -i parameter". Zsh reports "bad option:-i". > In builtin.c, there is an #ifdef that controls what command line options > are valid for zmodload depending on whether or not dynamic loading is > enabled. Ouch, hadn't thought of that. > What is the proper solution to this problem? > > Should compinit (and any other functions) be changed to check if it > is in a dynamic loading situation before calling zmodload? Or should > zmodload be modified to ignore "-i" (and other flags) in non-dyanmic > loading situations? I think the static linked version of `zmodload' should be quiet (and do nothing) if the module we attempt to load is linked in and should barf otherwise. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de