[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#19466: 25.0.50; xref-find-def doesn't find C functions
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#19466: 25.0.50; xref-find-def doesn't find C functions |
Date: |
Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:30:06 +0200 |
> Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:11:08 +0200
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> CC: 19466@debbugs.gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com
>
> On 02/01/2015 06:01 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> >> What have you tried, exactly?
> >
> > I evaluated your suggested code, and then typed "M-.".
>
> If you recall, I gave you several options, with the end goal being
> making the choice between them or maybe something else.
>
> So it would help if you mentioned exactly which one you tried and the
> problems you experienced after.
They all did the same, AFAICS.
> >> You should have noticed that `M-.' in emacs-lisp-mode buffers behaves
> >> like in other buffers and uses the current tags table (and prompts for
> >> it if the tags table hasn't been visited yet).
> >
> > It does.
>
> Good. So why did you report not seeing any significant changes?
Because I thought the effects were supposed to be more profound than
that.
> >> I've found one caveat now: even though the tags list is not buffer-local
> >> (right?), (tags-lazy-completion-table) returns different results in
> >> lisp/**/*.el buffers and src/*.c buffers.
> >
> > Yes, it's not 100% smooth.
>
> What do you mean by that exactly?
What you discovered: the order of loading Emacs TAGS tables matters.
I have never loaded lisp/TAGS directly, only src/TAGS, which then
includes lisp/TAGS.
> It can't be that same as what I meant because you've rejected the only
> example I gave.
I misunderstood your recipe, sorry. I only loaded src/TAGS.