vile
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vile] vile-9.7[stu] gets stuck "working..."


From: Ramil Farkhshatov
Subject: Re: [vile] vile-9.7[stu] gets stuck "working..."
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:08:47 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 06:14:39PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Ramil Farkhshatov wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 05:42:50AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> >>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Ramil Farkhshatov wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 05:02:51PM -0400, Clem Taylor wrote:
> >>>>Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm a long time vile user and I recently switched to a new desktop
> >>>>machine and have been unable to build a working version of vile. I'm
> >>>>using a x86_64 Fedora 11 system with gcc 4.4.1 and I built vile with:
> >>>>./configure LEX=reflex --with-builtin-filters=all
> >>>>
> >>>>During normal use (typically inserting text or deleting a line) vile
> >>>>gets stuck in a "working..." "...working" loop. I saw mention of this
> >>>>problem in the list archive, but didn't notice a resolution:
> >>>>
> >>>><skipped>
> >>>
> >>>Have same issue with «working...» loop on archlinux x86_64,
> >>>vile-9.7-[stuw] and flex instead of reflex. And for me it occurs every
> >>>time I press «dd». But when I've rebuilt vile with -O0 in CFLAGS
> >>>problem disappeared.
> >>
> >>I got a second report this week (off-list).  I've not been able to
> >>reproduce the bug, so I need help from someone who can...
> >
> >I'm reproducing it by just pressing «dd» (that should kill a line).
> >I've discovered that enabling -ftree-vrp (included in -O2) gcc
> >optimization flag triggers the issue. I hope this information can be
> >useful.
> 
> not directly (to me).  I don't have the same platform.  (I've tested
> mostly 32-bit platforms, but have tested 64-bit Solaris - which
> would
> still be different).

As far as I could investigate issue is in ldel_bytes. But if I add
fprintf(stderr, ";; nbytes: %u\n", nbytes);
just after `while` issue disappears. Asm listings of line.s with
fprintf and without differs heavily. I'm not good at x86_64
assembler though to make any conclusions. Can it be a compiler bug?
Forgot to mention that I'm using gcc-4.4.1.

-- 
Ramil Farkhshatov





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]