From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 2078 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2020 02:05:19 -0000 Received: from ns1.primenet.com.au (HELO primenet.com.au) (203.24.36.2) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 27 Jun 2020 02:05:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 12068 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2020 02:05:12 -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: Sender: zsh-workers@zsh.org X-Seq: 46135 Received: (qmail 21887 invoked by uid 1010); 27 Jun 2020 02:05:12 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail-oi1-f182.google.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.102.3/25850. spamassassin: 3.4.4. Clear:RC:0(209.85.167.182):SA:0(-1.9/5.0):. Processed in 1.812601 secs); 27 Jun 2020 02:05:12 -0000 X-Envelope-From: schaefer@brasslantern.com X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _netblocks.google.com designates 209.85.167.182 as permitted sender) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YQBB++GTaux+/y5S7CV5qnyPfXU1jF3e0s9HYzgiIng=; b=lJlAReBMStkKVAkekbQtfWfP/M1FggOXUvjBj7CH+KPYQKozFi6pdTBz4TuJ1cUU50 zr/mxGGKlhcArY0UIj5VtjOjypv8Y9WDaoQjuKcnNrhMPL8GeL/qLBg6Q9rXMvscz5Bd meFjNDZEizfUOBF6/BzSgb7adcBh3ixhM/AKf1H4NAdAn1xtzl3V9CtJSo66FcbumpQ4 sKkdU4XvzfdCdiOJt5riDfFZnPup34Dfq3BUvNn73yFqCwB+93xAphEASQTmgpZEOcVc zcnBvWoFrVzNVzu96Zgc0rk2Ob0a3WOX75dJbFlEHlxjgpc+vDLpZYfX+XocQv0PFwvU 0EYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533w0xeNqBkQQ/dtex/CnzPDpxZSrqhhpIK7mRG+YqHfG3UxO/K6 ZCmDoOaENIU7tUrZv6UFFuGnVWIs/4jQiLB+LqnUVA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIEFsOx+AMrHUFxcKTMci735t6Bn/PKylpBXPuBhHPA6NZ4HAblndsInCOItzUCBvR1+8BxUTS2d4spuCcslI= X-Received: by 2002:aca:3b54:: with SMTP id i81mr4490275oia.84.1593223476781; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:04:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200626141644.7cb5e511@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> <20200627014717.68986199@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> In-Reply-To: <20200627014717.68986199@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> From: Bart Schaefer Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:04:25 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [BUG] zsystem:34: flock: invalid timeout value: '0' To: Daniel Shahaf Cc: Sebastian Gniazdowski , Zsh hackers list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000061be2805a9073f7b" --00000000000061be2805a9073f7b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:48 PM Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Regarding the actual bug report, the next steps are for the > aforementioned commit to be confirmed as causing an unintended > behaviour change and for a test and a patch to be written. > It's pretty obvious that the patch caused the change: + if (timeout < 1e-6 || timeout > 1073741823.) { + zwarnnam(nam, "flock: invalid timeout value: '%s'", + optarg); + return 1; + } Similarly: + if (timeout_param.u.d < 1 + || timeout_param.u.d > 0.999 * LONG_MAX) { + zwarnnam(nam, "flock: invalid interval value: '%s'", + optarg); + return 1; + } I don't know enough about dealing with the float-valued time specs to be sure what to do about it, i.e., why a limit above zero was considered necessary or whether zero needs to be a special case. --00000000000061be2805a9073f7b--