From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#36591: 26.2; Term's pager seems broken Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:02:09 +0200 Message-ID: <875znqctzy.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> References: <87lfwox3fi.fsf@gmail.com> <838ssops2u.fsf@gnu.org> <87imrsw5gj.fsf@gmail.com> <83y30no4hi.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftmvvsol.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="14541"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: abliss@gmail.com, 36591@debbugs.gnu.org To: Noam Postavsky Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 25 12:03:09 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 1hqaaa-0003gQ-2K for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:03:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58268 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqaaZ-0002cg-1R for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:03:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48599) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqaaV-0002cE-8h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:03:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hqaaU-0005Da-95 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:03:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:57816) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hqaaU-0005Cv-50 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:03:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqaaU-0003FW-03 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:03:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:03:01 +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=B36591.156404893812440 (code B ref 36591); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:03:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 36591) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Jul 2019 10:02:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38404 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqaZm-0003EV-6Y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:02:18 -0400 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:41920) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqaZk-0003EF-Gv for 36591@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:02:16 -0400 Original-Received: from 109.179.27.28.tmi.telenormobil.no ([109.179.27.28] helo=sandy) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hqaZg-0003OP-31; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:02:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87ftmvvsol.fsf@gmail.com> (Noam Postavsky's message of "Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:55:38 -0400") 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:163693 Archived-At: Noam Postavsky writes: >> On the master branch we should clean up the confusing set of if >> clauses, both in set-process-filter and in connect_network_socket. >> Perhaps Lars could describe his reasoning for making the change which >> introduced set_process_filter_masks and what problem it tried to >> solve. (Btw, the log message for that change seems to imply that >> set-process-filter should not have called set_process_filter_masks, >> something that the change itself disagrees with. An omission?) > > Hmm, true, I didn't pay that close attention to the log message. > Maybe "we may not have a socket yet" refers to the already existing > 'if (p->infd >= 0)' check? Let's see... this was part of the patch series that allowed for asynchronous connection setup? I think Noam is right -- the "we may not have the socket yet" refers to this bit: if (p->infd >= 0) set_process_filter_masks (p); But it does indeed look like I was confused with filter/p->filter and assumed they were the same. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no