From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-36474-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 15000 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2015 15:56:36 -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: 36474
Received: (qmail 3575 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2015 15:56:35 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-f794b6d000001495-c2-55f1a82cb9aa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:55:54 +0100
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: Infinite loop on exit
Message-id: <20150910165554.79d95cb9@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <150910084347.ZM22882@torch.brasslantern.com>
References: <20150901230743.GA12128@zira.vinc17.org>
 <20150902001322.GA17603@zira.vinc17.org>
 <150901191441.ZM15728@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <CA+=GgY7H-p+GXyLuwYS55rhNCRpJL9MnMNr_4D8gfKMenpZ9mQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150906183800.4abe1e57@ntlworld.com>
 <150910072510.ZM21990@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <20150910155107.63b8081c@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <150910084347.ZM22882@torch.brasslantern.com>
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+NgFjrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xq7o6Kz6GGjw5LWpxsPkhkwOjx6qD
	H5gCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4MmaseM5asIil4tHDTpYGxtXMXYycHBICJhK7+u6zQ9hiEhfu
	rWfrYuTiEBJYyijx/swHsISQwAwmiS/rciAS2xglVt9fwAqSYBFQlbh8/TwLiM0mYCgxddNs
	RhBbREBc4uxaiLiwgJLEmz/vgAZxcPAK2Eusvi4JEuYUsJI4eWIF1LKpzBKXD7wDm8kvoC9x
	9e8nJoiL7CVmXjkDNpNXQFDix+R7YDOZBbQkNm9rYoWw5SU2r3nLDHGousSNu7vZJzAKzULS
	MgtJyywkLQsYmVcxiqaWJhcUJ6XnGukVJ+YWl+al6yXn525ihATt1x2MS49ZHWIU4GBU4uFN
	uPghVIg1say4MvcQowQHs5IIr3nfx1Ah3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjNIcLErivDN3vQ8REkhP
	LEnNTk0tSC2CyTJxcEo1MDZc/D2zxafHvLgl5xbXTa30v0xbds9646u90XKhmHJ2QG1/Wv+5
	J5FdDw+9EDrLnyc/gf1Fnrji3ogfxToZIbOXKbxVq29xWDLvfeSkB0VKK07aFTR2JhgwNh+6
	J5E+dVNhVkvt2haOF94et1e8U72bH1k1ucV7h6u/dcoz5e2i65OXuR6ZqMRSnJFoqMVcVJwI
	AIIdtAZWAgAA

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:43:47 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10,  3:51pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> }
> } To avoid going insane, we only recover at the top level (sanitising the
> } chain of checks to optimise this so we could exit earlier would be
> } pretty gruesome and gain almost nothing).
> 
> There was already a check of exit_pending within a few lines of the place
> I added mine in 36470.  Should we do both patches?

I think they are not in competition, so that would probably be OK.

pws