From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#46670: 28.0.50; [feature/native-comp] possible miscompilation affecting lsp-mode Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 09:49:20 +0200 Message-ID: <835z2eosqn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a6ry46uc.fsf@collares.org> <83mtvqpp15.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6842"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 46670@debbugs.gnu.org, mauricio@collares.org, akrl@sdf.org To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 27 08:52:06 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lFuOU-0001gl-5P for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:52:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36978 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFuOT-0006zK-91 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 02:52:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58172) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFuMU-0006Cj-Ev for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 02:50:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59818) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFuMU-0006In-6m for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 02:50:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lFuMU-0006j4-4v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 02:50:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 07:50:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46670 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 46670-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46670.161441217825813 (code B ref 46670); Sat, 27 Feb 2021 07:50:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46670) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2021 07:49:38 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43131 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lFuM5-0006iH-Lp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 02:49:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40264) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lFuM3-0006i3-R5 for 46670@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 02:49:36 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56708) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFuLy-00060h-3x; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 02:49:30 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1767 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lFuLw-0003Uv-Lj; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 02:49:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Pip Cet on Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:06:43 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:200925 Archived-At: > From: Pip Cet > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:06:43 +0000 > Cc: Andrea Corallo , 46670@debbugs.gnu.org, mauricio@collares.org > > > AFAICT, the principles proposed by Andrea are just common sense, and > > definitely not a drastic change from our existing practices. > > Let me try to explain a situation in which I don't think they work > very well, and which may or may not be similar to the situation we're > actually in: > > 1. We're emitting strange "assume" insns. > 2. These are pseudo-insns which are not rendered into functional code. > 3. We do not have a facility for converting these "assume" insns into > functional code which asserts they hold at runtime. > 4. We have test cases which ensure the "assume" insns are actually > generated as they currently are. > > How, assuming for the moment that the "strange" in (1) actually means > "buggy", are we supposed to fix this? I don't see any evidence yet that this needs to be fixed. Without such evidence, the whole discussion is about a moot point. Maybe I don't understand the issue well enough?