On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Tony Mechelynck wrote: > On 16/04/10 00:38, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: > > On 2010-04-15, Tony Mechelynck wrote: > > > On 15/04/10 19:35, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: > > > > > > > [...] > > > > Why isn't the file considered to be 'modified' after it's > > > > changed by the recovery process? (Hence the 'ZZ' fails to save > > > > it.) > > > > > > > > > > I think it's a bug; see thread ":wa don't save recovered files" > > > started 2010-02-19 02:15 -0800 by "smith"< dmitriy DOT kuznetsov > > > AT gmail DOT com> on this ML. > > > > Yep. Sounds like the same problem. > > > > [...] > > > > > BTW which Vim version and patchlevel are you using? (as shown by > > > the first few lines of the output of :version, until the line > > > ending "Features included (+) or not (-):") > > > > VIM - Vi IMproved 7.2 (2008 Aug 9, compiled Mar 5 2010 09:03:28) > > Included patches: 1-376 > > Modified by Gentoo-7.2.376 > > Compiled by paludisbu...@hp > > Huge version without GUI. Features included (+) or not (-): > > > > Thanks as always, Tony. > > > > Hm, 7.2.376, with unspecified mods by Gentoo.
The other reporter was using GVim on Vista. I'm going to guess the Gentoo Linux mods (which AFAICT are compilation-error- and Gentoo file-format syntax-related) aren't at fault. I think the 'Modified' line is a CYA move on Gentoo's part. > I don't know if Bram's "latest of the greatest" source has a patch for > your problem (see http://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/patches/7.2/README which > lists Bram's "official" patches to 7.2.411 as of this writing) but it > includes 35 bugfixes you haven't got (admittedly including a few > Windows ones I suppose, but usually most of them are > platform-agnostic) and using it would clear away the Gentoo mods, of > which we know nothing. Nothing in the hg log reveals anything that would change this between 376 and 411. > Compiling Vim on Linux isn't really hard (once you have the > appropriate "development" packages installed), see > http://users.skynet.be/antoine.mechelynck/vim/compunix.htm (and Bram > has recently set up a Mercurial repository for the Vim source, which > I'll mention on that page once I get around to trying it). When Jean Johner's long-discussed "position is restored incorrectly on line 1" came up, I set up a nice little script for hg-bisect'ing. And it turned out to be a distro-dependent global vimrc issue. So, I don't tend to quickly jump on the "I'll recompile Vim and see" bus anymore. Especially when it's something that doesn't already seem version-dependent (in the case of the "line 1" issue, it differed for me between OpenSUSE 7.2.128(?) and Gentoo 7.2.280-or-so). In this case, the behavior's the same on both systems. Here's a script for reproducing the error easily on POSIX-y systems: The first editing session will echo a 'kill -KILL ####' line, which can be used from another terminal to kill the session unceremoniously. Then use 'ZZ' or ':wa' in the second Vim session, and see that it's not saved. #!/bin/sh f=/tmp/testfile rm -f $f vim +'set ut=100' $'+normal inot saved\e:w\n0dw\e:echo "kill -KILL ".getpid()\n' $f vim $f cat $f -- Best, Ben -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/vim_use/subscribe?hl=en
