From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Francesco =?UTF-8?Q?Potort=C3=AC?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++ files. Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:35:47 +0200 Message-ID: References: <555EC552.5010600@swipnet.se> <55606A8F.1020109@swipnet.se> <55606CC7.3010401@yandex.ru> <55606F70.10605@swipnet.se> <83twv31jzg.fsf@gnu.org> <83pp5r1hdx.fsf@gnu.org> <83mw0v1e5n.fsf@gnu.org> <83lhgczo16.fsf@gnu.org> <55639175.9090005@yandex.ru> <83fv6kysjf.fsf@gnu.org> <556447EF.3050103@yandex.ru> <83bnh7z8c5.fsf@gnu.org> <5564C2C7.5050909@yandex.ru> <837frvywfn.fsf@gnu.org> <55650812.60909@yandex.ru> <831ti2yu1a.fsf@gnu.org> <5565E28A.5040507@yandex.ru> <83wpzuxbtd.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1432812989 9350 80.91.229.3 (28 May 2015 11:36:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 11:36:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 20629@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 28 13:36:16 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxw6i-0007rf-0J for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:36:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57871 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxw6h-0008MC-6P for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:36:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47874) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxw6Z-0008M3-T7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:36:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxw6U-0002d7-RE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:36:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:49052) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxw6U-0002cm-Ng for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:36:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxw6U-0002Ci-BC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:36:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Francesco =?UTF-8?Q?Potort=C3=AC?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 11:36:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 20629 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 20629-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B20629.14328129548459 (code B ref 20629); Thu, 28 May 2015 11:36:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 May 2015 11:35:54 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59027 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxw6M-0002CM-0T for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:35:54 -0400 Original-Received: from blade3.isti.cnr.it ([194.119.192.19]:49065) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxw6I-0002CC-SY for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:35:52 -0400 Original-Received: from tucano.isti.cnr.it ([146.48.81.102]) by mx.isti.cnr.it (PMDF V6.5-x6 #32097) with ESMTPSA id <01PMICWK8GO2MDD357@mx.isti.cnr.it> for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:35:47 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from pot by tucano.isti.cnr.it with local (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxw6F-0003vN-Cl; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:35:47 +0200 In-reply-to: <83wpzuxbtd.fsf@gnu.org> X-INSM-ip-source: 146.48.81.102 Auth Done X-fingerprint: 4B02 6187 5C03 D6B1 2E31 7666 09DF 2DC9 BE21 6115 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:103252 Archived-At: Two point that are maybe useful for clarifying something. Explicit vs implicit tag: As far as etags.c is concerned, there is no *logical* difference between an explicit tag and an implicit tag. Both are tags and should be viewed and interpreted as such. The fact that a tag is explicit or implicit is *only* an optimization, intended to reduce the size of the TAGS file and the time needed to load it from disk. There should be *no* difference between the treatment of implicit and explicit tags when parsing TAGS file entries. Given that in the 15+ years since implicit tags where introduced the trade-offs between disk space and CPU time have changed, it could maybe make sense to remove the implicit tag concept altogether, and only have explicit tags, should this make things easier. Tagged vs non-tagged entries: An entry is tagged only when necessary, that is, when it would be ambiguous or difficult to match without a tags. Again, this is only an optimization, but this one has logical consequences. For example, for a function declaration it can be useful to make it clear what is the identifier to be matched, so there is a tag. In class-based programs, like C++, it can be useful to provide a fully-qualified name for an identifier, so there is a class::id tag. Here again, it may make sense to tag all entries, if it makes TAGS parsing easier or more accurate.