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#74437: 30.0.92; completion-preview-idle-delay is delayed by flyspell Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:04:29 +0200 Message-ID: <86sermrr8i.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87cyirbfpd.fsf@alternateved.com> <86bjybta3i.fsf@gnu.org> <861pz7t4yb.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7679"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 74437@debbugs.gnu.org, mail@alternateved.com To: Eshel Yaron Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 20 14:05:29 2024 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 1tDkOf-0001ta-5j for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:05:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tDkOF-0005sE-1r; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:05:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tDkOE-0005s0-5S for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:05:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tDkOD-0003NF-Rf for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:05:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:To:Subject; bh=Iksdyk4PtxINmztHon1pp1qvbPUe3Xw+85Zc6i8APhM=; b=T8iQP2QwiLiwH+5okerHwi4LTzbMc6FRKi6xtGgVqbbfVVZCy5FVWg+qNo8xYykuxZo5xpmi1SGejokHFCpwm2VWZfjYthVXWLw0VeaQN9LqxptH6J+gE7OV6Ol/m91CF7ERI/boyH9StP3oLW9rxZBrmWZ8BnwmHZ+MO4Ipi9GRti8FVFvdOmhdcEQhagtqYg/9YIGGL52QdkQznxBk1Gc60edVpRchf2jbQ6qib2QHJVtZ8f5BoE6LIpfVHzxTmXa31p4zXa8mD2z84nVkDNDxdV/aHUUbpbbuucKeQ54nZHTV0upqfD14XgUBEl8Pol/Z/6RCD5j/p7aTPaIBkA==; Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tDkOD-0003AC-LW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:05:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 13:05:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 74437 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 74437-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74437.173210788112128 (code B ref 74437); Wed, 20 Nov 2024 13:05:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 74437) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Nov 2024 13:04:41 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45776 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tDkNt-00039Y-2x for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:04:41 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38408) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tDkNq-00039H-B1 for 74437@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:04:39 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tDkNk-0003J9-Rb; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:04:32 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=Iksdyk4PtxINmztHon1pp1qvbPUe3Xw+85Zc6i8APhM=; b=Yp99p9Ozjxvq EodCGYx1x4+NLtTx8zCc5EEkXfB1FZLstfCpRa6iR1rj7l/pdmJh5WewR28VGB/Ib5PR60wA5sZOm uV1G+q4DhBRnKpOcnKFSfYAoXdu9d6KL9p2x99e1drqAz5l3xG57QXAgIpH1hgAHdUtOGHvf2gb/o C8BBAhYjALKP2TTxMpovqtcF0Yn8j+CsLbqgqWV8I0Yc1+8kuTdbjd3L/bzwKBlsAfpJbJmH+C1ce 5FfTZLs9HF0haT+7+Izl8WVfLkhfsX1ZMwj/c24KghKpnjpEwyJMs0cz+woWZYli1RC6sBQhpB4hI o6zM5WZdIcV/YukO0pEXtg==; In-Reply-To: (message from Eshel Yaron on Tue, 19 Nov 2024 21:16:56 +0100) 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:295676 Archived-At: > From: Eshel Yaron > Cc: 74437@debbugs.gnu.org, mail@alternateved.com > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 21:16:56 +0100 > > >> - (accept-process-output ispell-process) > >> + (accept-process-output ispell-process 1) > > > > Does this really work reliably from a timer? > > I don't immediately see why it shouldn't, and the tests I tried so far > seem to work, but your skepticism makes me wonder if there's anything > I'm missing. Do you have any particular potential issue in mind? Not concretely, no. But I see potential issues, since accept-process-output enters a recursive wait_reading_process_output, which could read output from other subprocesses, and timers affect how frequently wait_reading_process_output loops. So this should be thoroughly tested in various scenarios. > > You _are_ aware that this call to accept-process-output will run > > timers while we wait? > > Yes. If that's a cause for concern, we can inhibit running timers here > when we're calling flyspell-word from a timer, like in the patch below. That's one measure, yes. But it, too, should be thoroughly tested. > > Also, what happens if there are other async > > subprocesses running in parallel, like maybe Grep or compilation or > > url-retrieve? > > They make progress, which seems to work as expected, at least with Grep. > That is if we use the previous patch, with the one below we pass non-nil > JUST-THIS-ONE argument to accept-process-output when called from a timer > so other processes shouldn't see new output during this call. Either > way works, AFAICT. The question is: what do users expect to happen in those cases?