From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++ files. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:28:10 +0300 Message-ID: <5565E28A.5040507@yandex.ru> References: <555EC552.5010600@swipnet.se> <55606A8F.1020109@swipnet.se> <55606CC7.3010401@yandex.ru> <55606F70.10605@swipnet.se> <83twv31jzg.fsf@gnu.org> <83pp5r1hdx.fsf@gnu.org> <83mw0v1e5n.fsf@gnu.org> <83lhgczo16.fsf@gnu.org> <55639175.9090005@yandex.ru> <83fv6kysjf.fsf@gnu.org> <556447EF.3050103@yandex.ru> <83bnh7z8c5.fsf@gnu.org> <5564C2C7.5050909@yandex.ru> <837frvywfn.fsf@gnu.org> <55650812.60909@yandex.ru> <831ti2yu1a.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1432740574 25541 80.91.229.3 (27 May 2015 15:29:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 20629@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 27 17:29:20 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YxdGe-00075o-Tb for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 17:29:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54409 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YxdGd-00033x-Ue for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:29:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33760) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YxdGW-00032o-3P for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:29:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YxdGR-00048q-3g for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:29:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:48544) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YxdGQ-00048e-Ub for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:29:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YxdGQ-0002jJ-Nc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:29:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Dmitry Gutov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:29:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 20629 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 20629-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B20629.143274050810428 (code B ref 20629); Wed, 27 May 2015 15:29:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2015 15:28:28 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58516 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YxdFn-0002i1-J4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:28:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]:34810) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YxdFh-0002hi-Vf for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:28:22 -0400 Original-Received: by wicmc15 with SMTP id mc15so97513424wic.1 for <20629@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 27 May 2015 08:28:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yn39XXvhmpEO+d6wbU23OlLhaKhayDXINeyr/pdjRd4=; b=fwE6Ooa6TlrX+cIeuMV6m+dWYW+JNX6D8RivyMfZvDCviAVwqWXGPuSe9f74y6Z3gU LcfUmYyG6FpgpciIrxTwtzkfoTClM17zMF9oR9vPqiNsbEejO0HwmAJecHrUFR/zZceZ xwaoIgkOElLYtVNrksJieV/IKVH2CzSoaBL745UpmkM/r1XrK2hHggdUhRCbZXrqcPIY 4GRIsWo8sr62WR8wHNPSNph7J3rPFV1CZcmo9IzVGRP3NDghB0hHWU7mK9CrjU85Zr9L GCp6/bj9TL3cqM/b4NQli21Y3vqeLonxpLPKfg6gGhnrR/GWyWexUxOnGIMeoYKh9KCD vDaA== X-Received: by 10.180.230.199 with SMTP id ta7mr19462326wic.1.1432740492413; Wed, 27 May 2015 08:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([82.102.93.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ju2sm4186151wid.12.2015.05.27.08.28.11 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 May 2015 08:28:12 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0 In-Reply-To: <831ti2yu1a.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:103221 Archived-At: On 05/27/2015 05:28 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > That's not the same situation: [()=,;] are used only if there's no > explicit tag name; tag-implicit-name-match-p is used either way. > The idea > behind tag-implicit-name-match-p is an observation that in many > practical cases [()=,;] delimit the tag name, and when it does, > etags.c could refrain from putting an explicit tag name in TAGS. IOW, > this is just an optimization, meant to keep TAGS smaller. That was my understanding as well. However, whether explicit tag names are included or not, doesn't have a lot of effect on my alternative suggestion. > By contrast, what you are suggesting (AFAIU) is process an explicit > tag name, such as "foo::bar::baz", to deduce that it matches "baz". No, to process patterns. I don't think we've ever had qualified explicit tag names, did we? > Or maybe I don't understand the suggestion, since you were talking > about tag-implicit-name-match-p, which doesn't look at the explicit > tag name at all, and the explicit tag name is the root cause here. Running 'etags -Q', and updating tag-implicit-name-match-p to also include : in NONAM should both show us the qualified names in the completion table, as well match the unqualified names when asked for tags. >> You should try the patch and see how it goes. > > I will, thanks. Let us continue this discussion when there's some feedback on it.