[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an err
From: |
Jeff Norden |
Subject: |
bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error |
Date: |
Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:03:07 -0500 |
> I've spent quite a long time looking at this, trying various means to
> trigger the error (via `insert-file-contents' and `revert-buffer').
>
> Then it suddenly dawned on me that the (setq c-new-END (.....)) is OK.
> If the body of the the last `unless' has been run, (- end beg) and
> old-len are equal to each other, and to the buffer length. So c-new-END
> doesn't get changed in this case.
Yup, I guess I was more tired than I realized when I sent that off last
night, and jumped to a conclusion. So, I'll fall back to my original
theory, which I changed when noticed the code that precedes the
(setq c-new-END ...) line.
Somehow, and I sure don't know how, I think that c-after-change gets
called with: c-new-END already set to the value of point-max after the
insertion; and with the other variables set so that that beg, end, and
old-len remain unchanged. It's the only scenario that I can see that
fits the backtrace that Eli posted.
If Damien and/or Eli can temporarily try out the test that I suggested
and get it to trigger, I think that would verify this. In fact, maybe
warn would be even better:
(if (> c-new-END (point-max))
(warn "c-new-END is too big! %d > %d" c-new-END (point-max)))
This should produce a warnings window *and* a backtrace with the
args-out-of-range error. Don't change the line above yet if the goal is
to diagnose this. Assuming this does cause a combination warning and
backtrace to occur, then I guess there are two choices:
1) Try to figure out how the after-change function gets called in this
way, or
2) Just add a min to prevent c-new-END from exceeding point-max, and
leave it at that.
Regards,
-Jeff
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Damien Cassou, 2020/09/16
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/09/16
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Damien Cassou, 2020/09/16
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/09/16
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Damien Cassou, 2020/09/16
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Jeff Norden, 2020/09/17
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Damien Cassou, 2020/09/18
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Alan Mackenzie, 2020/09/18
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error,
Jeff Norden <=
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/09/19
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Alan Mackenzie, 2020/09/19
- bug#40317: 27.0.90; Reverting a buffer that visits C file signals an error, Alan Mackenzie, 2020/09/20