From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: (qmail 14868 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2020 18:37:12 -0000 Received-SPF: pass (primenet.com.au: domain of zsh.org designates 203.24.36.2 as permitted sender) receiver=inbox.vuxu.org; client-ip=203.24.36.2 envelope-from= Received: from unknown (HELO primenet.com.au) (203.24.36.2) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2020 18:37:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 17164 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2020 18:37:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: X-Seq: 45564 Received: (qmail 23779 invoked by uid 1010); 15 Mar 2020 18:37:02 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from nef2.ens.fr by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.102.2/25751. spamassassin: 3.4.2. Clear:RC:0(129.199.96.40):SA:0(-4.2/5.0):. Processed in 4.612935 secs); 15 Mar 2020 18:37:02 -0000 X-Envelope-From: ware@phare.normalesup.org X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at ens.fr designates 129.199.96.40 as permitted sender) X-ENS-nef-client: 129.199.129.80 Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 19:36:16 +0100 From: Cedric Ware To: Daniel Shahaf Cc: dana , zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable sub-second timeout in zsystem flock Message-ID: <20200315183616.psa3fhuzsvcmzcga@phare.normalesup.org> References: <20200111154143.fjtwgfnztqfmkyda@phare.normalesup.org> <20200308183907.mxnhqrr2uflwooax@phare.normalesup.org> <20200314210454.hp562smyqv3ew255@phare.normalesup.org> <20200315005036.45bc846b@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> <20200315160324.dstgtmajzwxpaccn@phare.normalesup.org> <20200315165410.GA30241@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200315165410.GA30241@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Sun, 15 Mar 2020 19:36:16 +0100 (CET) Daniel Shahaf (Sunday 2020-03-15): > Cedric Ware wrote on Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 17:03:24 +0100: > > I think that was about my earlier attempt to include the actual limit > > in the error message, not the input. I reverted to a generic message, > > because I don't know how to make the test script check for an error > > message that depends on the system/compiler options. > > How would the message depend on the system/compiler options? Not with your suggestion, which I implemented. My original idea was for an error message like "invalid timeout value, maximum is N", where N would be ZLONG_MAX / 2 / 1000000. But to display the latter, I'd have needed a way to output a zlong, which has just now been proposed. Would it be useful? > In any case, you might be able to address this by specifying the > expectations as patterns: OK, thanks. > How likely is zsh 5.9 to be ported to a platform that doesn't have a > 64-bit type? > > If that's a concern, I'd recommend to issue a warning or disable the > feature when we detect that case. > > I'm not sure whether that's a concern. Well, neither am I. :-) Essentially we'd have to keep both the old and the new code alongside, with an #if sizeof(zlong) < 8 to choose one. Cumbersome, but it could be done. > > Still, would you like it better if I limited the interval to > > min(LONG_MAX, ZLONG_MAX / 2) instead of LONG_MAX? > > Well, it sounds like that won't make any difference to bin_system_flock()'s > behaviour in practice (at least until someone has servers with uptimes > on the order of tens of kiloyears), so I don't have a strong preference. > I suppose I'd recommend whichever of these is more likely to remain > correct even if the code is copied elsewhere and adapted. Changing the limit should be easy. I see there is a macro minimum(). Can I assume that a long can always be promoted to a zlong? Thanks, best regards, Cedric Ware.