On Sunday 15 July 2007 06:06, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > I observed this unexpected behaviour:-- [...]
> >
> > Ok to apply the following patch, which resolves this?
>
> Please do.
Done.
FWIW, and for completeness, I did also check with:--
$ nroff -ms
.pl 0
.LP
<standard input>:2: warning: number register `0:ds-type' not defined
<standard input>:2: warning: number register `0:LL' not defined
<standard input>:2: warning: number register `0:ri' not defined
<standard input>:2: warning: number register `0:LT' not defined
<standard input>:2: warning: number register `0:li' not defined
<standard input>:2: warning: macro `FAM' not defined
<standard input>:2: warning: number register `0:PS' not defined
<standard input>:2: warning: number register `0:VS' not defined
<standard input>:2: warning: number register `0:PD' not defined
<standard input>:2: warning: number register `0:PI' not defined
and with:--
$ nroff -ms
.pl 1
.LP
:
:
<standard input>:2: fatal error: input stack limit exceeded
(probable infinite loop)
The `.pl 0' case is clearly some part of the initialisation code being
skipped, at zero page length, while the `.pl 1' case is, presumably,
recursive springing of the top of page trap. I guess it should be
possible to protect against these two cases, but, given the limited
usefulness of these short page lengths, it may not be worth the effort.
Regards,
Keith.
_______________________________________________
bug-groff mailing list
bug-groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-groff
