From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-32809-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 23602 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2014 09:49:58 -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: 32809
Received: (qmail 26361 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2014 09:49:54 -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=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,
	SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-b7f626d000004b39-ee-53abecbffafe
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:49:50 +0100
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: ulimit -a: -r vs -N [was Re: pkgsrc patches for zsh]
Message-id: <20140626104950.2110de6c@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <20140626083112.GC1837@tarsus.local2>
References: <20140624160708.6bef4d2c@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <20140624161102.GJ13765@danbala.tuwien.ac.at>
 <20140624172642.61b422e0@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <20140624170908.GK13765@danbala.tuwien.ac.at>
 <20140625092659.3e084cc7@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <20140625083655.GP13765@danbala.tuwien.ac.at>
 <sfid-H20140625-123353-+048.82-1@spamfilter.osbf.lua>
 <20140625113335.2a2675cd@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <20140625110010.GQ13765@danbala.tuwien.ac.at>
 <20140625121155.70228dab@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <20140626083112.GC1837@tarsus.local2>
Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker:
 H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuplluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42I5/e/4Fd39b1YHGxyZIGNxsPkhkwOjx6qD
	H5gCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4MmZ98S2Yx1LROeUBSwPjW6YuRk4OCQETiQPb+tghbDGJC/fW
	s3UxcnEICSxllNixcAkzhLOcSeLv2adgVSwCqhJt5+6xgthsAoYSUzfNZgSxRQTEJc6uPc8C
	YgsLOEpMWD8TrJ5XwF5i/6+DYDangJHElEnXmCCGbmeRWPqgCewMfgF9iat/P0GdZC8x88oZ
	RohmQYkfk++BDWUW0JLYvK2JFcKWl9i85i3zBEaBWUjKZiEpm4WkbAEj8ypG0dTS5ILipPRc
	I73ixNzi0rx0veT83E2MkCD8uoNx6TGrQ4wCHIxKPLwnwlYHC7EmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLh7bwD
	FOJNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsTIxMEp1cDIvbnk1aobCg31pW5SH9ZdPxW5fGnpzzXWf57U+qoX
	8arpGDya/HPujuz/y/du0/69x6h548RzkysesZZK6vwSWGrbY/xuxZH5y2Y3Hn/Kcm/60s21
	npwJ27TlNE1T198VTapmzFsxYUL8NqmqyfWbbAwOVT87wFe5wX71MpWnZe7Ryw68jW+TU2Ip
	zkg01GIuKk4EAF+gG1ggAgAA

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:31:12 +0000
Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Peter Stephenson wrote on Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:11:55 +0100:
> > +#  define THREAD_FMT            "-T: threads                         "
> > +#else
> > +#  define THREAD_FMT            "-T: threads per process             "
> >  #endif
> ...
> > +	    printf(THREAD_FMT);
> 
> It would be more robust to use
> 
>     printf("%s", THREAD_FMT);
> 
> to in case THREAD_FMT ever contains a %.

Yes, it would; that's what I've committed.

pws