From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-32852-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 4373 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2014 22:44:36 -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: 32852
Received: (qmail 9503 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2014 22:44:23 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Originating-IP: [86.6.157.246]
X-Spam: 0
X-Authority: v=2.1 cv=bPyYIZOZ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=BvYiZ/UW0Fmn8Wufq9dPrg==:117
 a=BvYiZ/UW0Fmn8Wufq9dPrg==:17 a=NLZqzBF-AAAA:8 a=yo2zJndj9JIA:10
 a=uObrxnre4hsA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=q2GGsy2AAAAA:8 a=mD_gjZW44PYfUwkYdxQA:9
 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=I6wTmPyJxzYA:10
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:33:12 +0100
From: Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: segmentation fault with {1..1234567}
Message-ID: <20140707203312.27566ab8@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
In-Reply-To: <140706124629.ZM19578@torch.brasslantern.com>
References: <20140704172545.GA29213@xvii.vinc17.org>
	<140704184036.ZM18558@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20140705111233.GA19385@xvii.vinc17.org>
	<140705095703.ZM12012@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20140705233916.GA18368@xvii.vinc17.org>
	<140706091609.ZM18865@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20140706193055.209f7a2b@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<140706124629.ZM19578@torch.brasslantern.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.7; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 12:46:29 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> The question is, do we fix this one instance (your patch), do we redefine
> VARARR() [possibly conditionally] to change all the usages at once, or do
> we individually evaluate the 50-odd uses of VARARR()?

Probably the third option is the right one, but it's the most work.  The
other possibilities are the pragmatic option of only fixing things when
they turn out to be buggy, or changing everything to heap allocation (or
something else known not to be problematic).  The best argument for the
last one is that it removes quite a lot of variant behaviour between
systems --- even if using zhalloc() isn't particularly efficient we can
all see whatever effects there are and are in a better position to fix
them (e.g. with appropriate heap manipulation commands).  For that
reason, I'm vaguely wondering if trying out that might not be a
reasonable start.

pws