From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-32423-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 236 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2014 16:28:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 32423
Received: (qmail 22391 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2014 16:28:39 -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=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham
	version=3.3.2
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
         :disposition-notification-to:user-agent;
        bh=UCHzlqrzAQaaNVPQDO+LiL4EjSHuUm8alxqmc07F7lY=;
        b=FYGzoL7C4f1dpj0Zd/nFTGWXncOhjONoi8HLr7mWR0ptUs5Y3pPJ+OJT6Dcji2EgV/
         8r1DUua9Mhh7kHaVzNTZoRKC5zgslE5iAkU79+KpO8JTDXofBzi3MTEVPhJ8klhI8TWa
         DntLENB8Yo0rGuuOj77299+8yPYWQ5AMs0MhwkCLg8LTJamjFx4/tGjQVecke8A/ULvj
         4d6UijTtlzo22W6NSZv3/hJzzhd6Am1R5/IkV/l6f905FVYtZrUe3wqnnivdAUPki9MA
         IVvhwEZs6X0D1HcRv7Leeug8lUMMgZjpZHXsOtoH9Gh/PMgTvMGeNEpFvRHvlAdz54CS
         41jg==
X-Received: by 10.68.194.97 with SMTP id hv1mr10044677pbc.162.1393000113456;
        Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:28:33 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 00:27:12 +0800
From: lilydjwg <lilydjwg@gmail.com>
To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Cc: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: It seems that I find a zle -F full CPU bug
Message-ID: <20140221162712.GA14286@lilyforest>
References: <20140220050415.GA29027@lilyforest>
 <CAH+w=7Z+R_ZexSkesp2z+ndooHStOGJcMeWXtD7HCunjqJp9-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140220094053.137da74f@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <20140220131659.GA21182@lilyforest>
 <CAH+w=7ZQ3ivj3DOe0e4z7_w=Av-FvLxfxzdb3vtWQpzvhCmoLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH+w=7boWTG=CFF0L66qxBvC7Bs+Neg8pUazUp7TFPiVXfgAKA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAH+w=7boWTG=CFF0L66qxBvC7Bs+Neg8pUazUp7TFPiVXfgAKA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:47:18PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
> wrote:

> However ... and again I may be reading this wrong ... I think the outer
> test for whether to call the handler at all will skip the handlers for FDs
> with error states.  In the HAVE_POLL branch, for example, it first looks
> for the POLLIN flags but not for any error flags?  So it will never reach
> the set of tests that examine POLLNVAL et al.?

Oh yes, the handler won't get POLLNVAL, but it does get POLLHUP, which
comes along with POLLIN when the peer closes the other end of a pipe (or
a socket connection I think).

-- 
Best regards,
lilydjwg