From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5368 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2015 20:50:25 -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: X-Seq: 36015 Received: (qmail 22110 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2015 20:50:23 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) 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,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=c0xPmfjrBCNe/40L1btP0w1SE+mpupsOPu3YHZgHfho=; b=HRDKg3z2nO2N+xTyOzgpuDmgTjpEdpdn2mvW2WhZiB2H4mejTTnH9T8o48mPY7VfX2 WfY9/Bq4VbS7Dgx8yz+ycKlNxyVxI7IEOHIylwIwykBEF4yOKQFJMFlyi4w3BchmY6yc NeezMUPLmEHBIpiz+wb6UhqgpKKbEytuETaXPPo0XR5LHPybgYzPA6TX+C3UH9FFciJ+ 3EBAoJ2VDzT8U+zOaH95kCeo3B1tGoCDMeLgV9TPAfq9mJXCM22LGf0DNts5rFHJLxtT IdYX+00/ne8kI0YA7Ez/GJw80L06atSgsegctX3GMMRf9Micm6U2/QuvmRNWkgYMexNu Pb8Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.138.216 with SMTP id c85mr14445818ioj.187.1439067020218; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:50:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150808200521.4e3c85d1@ntlworld.com> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:50:20 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 5.0.9 eventually...? From: Mikael Magnusson To: Bart Schaefer Cc: Zsh hackers list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Aug 8, 2015 12:11 PM, "Peter Stephenson" > wrote: >> >> Anyone (including Bart, obviously) with a feel for what's the state of >> affairs with regards to immediate problems? > > Nothing has been done about the infinite loop with "wait" printing the job > status. After pointing out that ksh and bash differ in wait > implementation, I got distracted by the signal handing deadlock thread. > > I have what I think is a comprehensive patch for that signal issue but am > AFK today (writing this message on my phone). Will post later. > > I posted a sort-of patch for the "typeset -T" crash, but I agree that it is > not the ideal solution. As far as I could tell, the code in question has been there since 2005 so it's not a recent regression, if that's a factor. > That's as much as I'm aware of from memory. Same, and glancing through the threads, I can't see anything else important either. All the (known) $(( ))-related problems were fixed, right? -- Mikael Magnusson