From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-32759-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 6368 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2014 13:25:55 -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: 32759
Received: (qmail 26310 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2014 13:25:52 -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-Biglobe-Sender: <takimoto-j@kba.biglobe.ne.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
Subject: Re: Weird completion bug in Src/Zle/compmatch.c#bld_line
From: "Jun T." <takimoto-j@kba.biglobe.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <1A1C7709-6FDE-4C00-A366-C6F5C6A4FACA@laposte.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 22:25:48 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <6D8889A3-BCF4-4513-83E8-BAFCFD5F6CF0@kba.biglobe.ne.jp>
References: <33086926-C7D7-4D33-AF86-4B0D48977555@laposte.net> <140607105445.ZM24783@torch.brasslantern.com> <E8AF8725-DB8D-4B77-B914-B9823429614E@laposte.net> <140607123006.ZM25086@torch.brasslantern.com> <35EC1DF1-5D60-42CA-93FB-A6400E4308CF@laposte.net> <140607140205.ZM26027@torch.brasslantern.com> <24D729FF-77D8-4F38-848B-86920FE1FD11@laposte.net> <5902E7DB-F4FD-4486-BE0D-14BAA165FCE9@kba.biglobe.ne.jp> <1A1C7709-6FDE-4C00-A366-C6F5C6A4FACA@laposte.net>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-Biglobe-Spnum: 62370

What you are getting is not a mystery at all, but may give some hint.

In your patch:

 	    if (!ms)
+                closelog();
 		return 0;	/* Didn't match, give up */

but you need a block { .. } here, as follows:

 	    if (!ms) {
                closelog();
 		return 0;	/* Didn't match, give up */
	    }


If you use your patch, the function returns 0 even if ms is not NULL.
In the original code, the function returns 0 if ms is NULL and llen is 0;
otherwise it returns rl.

I guess your journey continues...