From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-31377-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 23138 invoked by alias); 5 May 2013 18:43:45 -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: 31377
Received: (qmail 24360 invoked from network); 5 May 2013 18:43:30 -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,
	SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at bewatermyfriend.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
From: Frank Terbeck <ft@bewatermyfriend.org>
To: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: precmd: write error: interrupted
In-Reply-To: <CAH+w=7Zdkq0St4cjCaFuEUmqYSTXjunSA=e_cx92gDCM9Y5L3g@mail.gmail.com>
	(Bart Schaefer's message of "Sun, 5 May 2013 10:53:07 -0700")
References: <klbmnc$ieh$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<130425111646.ZM17258@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<klc2ah$jiv$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<130426080805.ZM18619@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<517C0E09.4040505@users.sourceforge.net>
	<130427153141.ZM20125@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<517D40B0.8020609@thregr.org>
	<130428180338.ZM14577@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<8738u2b8gy.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org>
	<CAH+w=7YJCF-d0X7_ahK1R3HCch1fsLs1eebACjoc0hF=3BUpAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87y5btahrj.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org>
	<CAH+w=7Zdkq0St4cjCaFuEUmqYSTXjunSA=e_cx92gDCM9Y5L3g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)
Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 20:37:31 +0200
Message-ID: <87ppx59st0.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Df-Sender: [pbs]NDMwNDQ0

Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Frank Terbeck <ft@bewatermyfriend.org>wrote:
>> I've pushed this, because it's definitely an improvement. I tried
>> looking for the right position to unblock SIGWINCH for the `exec' case
>> in exec.c, but couldn't find it yet. Maybe someone has a more specific
>> idea than I do?
>
>  As far as I can tell, there are six calls to execve() in Src/exec.c.  If a
> winch_unblock() were placed just before each of those six calls, the
> unblock in zfork() from that last patch could probably be reverted.

That sounds like a plan. And my test cases seem to work fine, so I just
pushed those two changes.


Regards, Frank