From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-29357-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 12074 invoked by alias); 23 May 2011 16:19:10 -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: 29357
Received: (qmail 29148 invoked from network); 23 May 2011 16:19:08 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham
	version=3.3.1
Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.google.com designates 209.85.212.43 as permitted sender)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=lChQkaUkj6wNVsaVRJEt07FYelcWleCsF6loECR51mA=;
        b=IY9xJRwVIgvhSNGepV2Z9+9wuVPWJOS2PDPIk+Cggiquwc6XX+64oIFeS6i+XWNn3W
         TM6CX7CX6tAO+QpvWK25Y5XTe+15XtorrES2SJVQx9EbJjAegmT5w481uhZ3sCB4o3AH
         pZPRDcCPJ8hazsHa1aqwTni9kXSqWJrkObqMk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=KaVR8JZKTF4BcVz/vi3urkiRaJAYSwSAn/3vCq9TEmoYsDi+eg4HAO9PVo7/3A0h1o
         kq3Kyf39OSTo2bQfY6uxVoAikDQN82sOOvPXRQU1W1kEVBifTyucfPOmBSgzcY2tXwTf
         SeIZ2Cyhbu5FH5TMqfrafzNgF5v779ka6OC3A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <110523091052.ZM10054@torch.brasslantern.com>
References: <20110523161035.747f484d@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
	<BANLkTikMf5QA30RxWhL=WpMwbFznfPERsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinUaE7S0UF67empL53Vqbs=dqA1tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110523165614.5e638a17@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
	<110523091052.ZM10054@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 18:19:04 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimYGyg5Cf2v3yyvM_1iorRa53e6eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Test failure with negative substring offsets
From: Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com>
To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Cc: "Zsh Hackers' List" <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 23 May 2011 18:10, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> On May 23,  4:56pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> }
> } stdarg doesn't know the arguments need to be converted to integers to
> } fit the size being claimed in the printf prototype.

This is a much better conclusion than mine.

> Er, wouldn't it therefore have been better to change the prototype to
> expect a long?

It doesn't expect a long, it expects a zlong, which can be a long or a
long long.

#ifdef ZSH_64_BIT_TYPE
typedef ZSH_64_BIT_TYPE zlong;
#ifdef ZSH_64_BIT_UTYPE
typedef ZSH_64_BIT_UTYPE zulong;
#else
typedef unsigned zlong zulong;
#endif
#else
typedef long zlong;
typedef unsigned long zulong;
#endif

But why does this code use zlong at all? 2^31 characters should be
long enough for everyone. (And things will probably fall over for
other reasons before that point, no?) But maybe the autoconf macro
could define a ZSH_PRINTF_SPECIFIER to %ld or %lld depending on what
zlong is?

-- 
Mikael Magnusson