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 12:24:11 +0200 Message-ID: <83v9adolkk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a6ry46uc.fsf@collares.org> <83mtvqpp15.fsf@gnu.org> <835z2eosqn.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9076"; 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 11:25:16 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 1lFwmi-0002EZ-7b for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:25:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46310 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFwmg-0006YJ-Ql for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:25:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48216) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFwmV-0006Ws-2m for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:25:04 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59870) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFwmU-0000ge-Jm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:25:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lFwmU-0001wG-EH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:25:02 -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 10:25:02 +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=B46670.16144214727411 (code B ref 46670); Sat, 27 Feb 2021 10:25:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46670) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2021 10:24:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43183 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lFwlz-0001vS-L9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:24:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58550) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lFwly-0001vE-71 for 46670@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:24:30 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57884) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFwlq-0000Iu-Os; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:24:22 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3611 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lFwlq-0007v6-4k; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:24:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Pip Cet on Sat, 27 Feb 2021 09:39:50 +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:200931 Archived-At: > From: Pip Cet > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 09:39:50 +0000 > Cc: Andrea Corallo , 46670@debbugs.gnu.org, mauricio@collares.org > > > > 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. > > Quite the reverse: if we make rules saying such bug reports are to be > ignored, as Andrea suggested, actually reporting the bug is moot. It's > the rules I objected to in the previous mail, not the legitimate > requirement for further elaboration on my part before anyone else is > convinced there's a bug. Reports are never ignored, because someone needs to read them before deciding whether they need any action. But that's beside the point. My point is that if those "assume" forms never generate any real code in the produced .eln file, then why worry about them? They are like comments: if you don't like comments, just ignore them; they don't actually affect any executable code. > All of this was sufficient for me to write Andrea asking whether there > was an issue (leaving out what I thought would be, to him, the tedious > trivialities of the lines above), or whether I was confused. I could > certainly have handled the ensuing exchange better, and I'll try to do > so in the future. However, the categorical instalment of new rules > disallowing the presentation of patches or bug reports for all bugs > outside a very narrow class would prevent that entirely. There are no rules that disallow presentation of patches. But anyone who presents patches must understand that people who review those patches could decide the issue the patches try to fix is not worth fixing, or isn't a problem in the first place. If you want to avoid such decisions, _then_ you need to satisfy those rules. IOW, they aren't rules for submitting stuff, they are rules for considering the submitted stuff as significant and for attracting the attention of the individuals responsible for the respective code.