From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#36591: 26.2; Term's pager seems broken Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:57:52 -0400 Message-ID: <85blxij8tb.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87lfwox3fi.fsf@gmail.com> <838ssops2u.fsf@gnu.org> <87imrsw5gj.fsf@gmail.com> <83y30no4hi.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftmvvsol.fsf@gmail.com> <875znqctzy.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <87a7d2w9mj.fsf@gmail.com> <85h87aja6e.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="239212"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1.92 (windows-nt) Cc: abliss@gmail.com, 36591@debbugs.gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 25 19:58:12 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hqi0H-00102y-OW for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:58:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34608 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqi0G-0007di-C6 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:58:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41472) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqi0B-0007Sl-D7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:58:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hqi0A-00070b-2e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:58:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59827) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hqi09-000702-UT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:58:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqi09-0007Bb-PQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:58:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Noam Postavsky Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:58:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 36591 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 36591-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B36591.156407748127616 (code B ref 36591); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:58:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 36591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Jul 2019 17:58:01 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40415 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqi08-0007BM-TF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:58:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com ([209.85.166.67]:36724) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqi06-0007B9-Jp for 36591@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:57:59 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id o9so99206677iom.3 for <36591@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=XlFRN3/WF0QVW0m9EqJtc0JXkTKpRzTpJoZCV4NTtLA=; b=isikCrTbp1GFUOCgfplzoREIg2rhOMNAGzcOpqCowxDw6LyVzlUY+0dHHNO9IQYQta Dy5DGTZTlL+6jM4nq0UoIRTpyKZyIYDrtJV1izgahknqX9Rn4KEeyDTBtLSxUXLCL074 Z1vo+1TqA2iY0SO/mwzuW9VW9hZBtJrCk9knPE+/DvZVTF4BQM/ahxuGxcHfPlrSt4hD ttIvk//YrWS+WNzmroNVsAtYK39mLUdZF8zN5f4oHJtM8pF5ruDQKVLdl3OUcdurtTz0 plKu8hZXPccetbZEOnzk9gv37AWp79SIma75FgfZzxLY8/UpaMz7zF+4g+s/Dt19tTdY jM7A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=XlFRN3/WF0QVW0m9EqJtc0JXkTKpRzTpJoZCV4NTtLA=; b=t84Ubhe3V8Nuu4REDLxsg1KY3LDqGU942K/ZpGo7jVpXCQ3qGbPfO+VTRGYFkIdper w4lkF6q1RhR5traVLyAkjC30E1L5l8YyevcwOvpA87n4/aG5+7ZzyvM0DcFntDB4Ns7b i+hyUhd4xzuiB2+lQ8ILwhN6RzdfhXdytsxfVa1zZmgTVDz9Fu8EDdatCfVxtzEBwQX1 2jK1GstJ+DuZ5J4+erPTSswqxpyCdPW/8Yf0r5zOD3jXK8dW2zxqkYTNzbKPf24aClS8 EKMoC0WX1CNni+bMBQCzHeM/5RRlpT7r4gdCMsYtJgiQcxQucmV2Vky/BaMV6TdOEICh Ht3A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWzn7kpcliboIo2fhXsv9MPXSZGSvGAtN/8xxsRoWeOqSlpe+FA tfQ87H5hCunslGtRXXvkPHKxEHvS X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxpYRi+O2107JVy8IBTSvc7v3xVv1ajbOG1N+8yLJs2CGpELAwvn/vGNPK/zwz/cMwBhrj88Q== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:790a:: with SMTP id i10mr78797936iop.150.1564077472772; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from vhost2 (CPE001143542e1f-CMf81d0f809fa0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.230.51.196]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k2sm43637420iom.50.2019.07.25.10.57.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:57:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:44:15 +0200") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:163730 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Hm... the problem was really when you call `set-process-filter' more > than once? The problem is when you call (set-process-filter PROC t) and then (set-process-filter PROC FILTER), where FILTER is not t. The first time we correctly do delete_read_fd, but on the second time, we don't call add_process_read_fd on PROC's fd, so we never hear from it again. For a minimal example with subprocesses (not sockets), see https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?msg=17;att=1;bug=36591;filename=bug-36591-proc-filter-t.el > I do not think connect_network_socket is called more than once per > process... so I don't think it should be a problem? But the logic is > rather difficult to follow. Yeah, quite difficult. I guess the question is whether connect_network_socket will call add_process_read_fd even the first time though. I think not. But there are other calls to add_process_read_fd, so it's possible that we end up listening to the socket anyway.