From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#16377: Undo Tree regression: (error "Unrecognized entry in undo list undo-tree-canary") Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 01:35:54 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1499319382 26278 195.159.176.226 (6 Jul 2017 05:36:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:36:22 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 16377@debbugs.gnu.org, Barry OReilly , Toby Cubitt To: Keith David Bershatsky Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 06 07:36:13 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dSzST-00068O-6e for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 07:36:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49339 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dSzSY-00017I-7K for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 01:36:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50834) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dSzSQ-00017A-8H for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 01:36:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dSzSM-0006Et-AM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 01:36:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51382) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dSzSM-0006EM-6P for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 01:36:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dSzSL-00067w-TI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 01:36:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 05:36:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16377 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 16377-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16377.149931935923544 (code B ref 16377); Thu, 06 Jul 2017 05:36:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16377) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jul 2017 05:35:59 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54059 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dSzSI-00067g-QY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 01:35:59 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:43290) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dSzSG-00067W-H9 for 16377@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 01:35:57 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id v665ZshK000307; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:35:55 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 9268066273; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:35:54 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Keith David Bershatsky's message of "Wed, 05 Jul 2017 22:01:16 -0700") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6064=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6064> : inlines <5963> : streams <1752971> : uri <2457041> 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: 208.118.235.43 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:134242 Archived-At: > + (window-of-current-buffer (get-buffer-window (current-buffer))) > + (selected-window (selected-window))) [...] > + (unless (eq window-of-current-buffer selected-window) Better check (eq (window-buffer) (current-buffer)), since these two functions are mere accessors, whereas get-buffer-window is a funny function which returns *one of* the buffer's windows (or nil) and is hence both more costly (it has a loop inside) and less reliable. > - (when (or (> (point-min) beg) (< (point-max) end)) > - (error "Changes to be undone are outside visible portion of buffer")) > + (when (or (> (point-min) beg) (< (point-max) end)) > + (let ((debug-on-quit nil) > + (msg (concat > + "undo-tree--primitive-undo (1 of 4):" > + " " > + "Changes to be undone are outside visible portion of buffer."))) > + (signal 'quit `(,msg)))) Not sure what is the benefit of signaling `quit` rather than `error`. Can you expand on that? > - ;; Insert might have invalidated some of the markers > - ;; via modification hooks. Update only the currently > - ;; valid ones (bug#25599). > - (if (marker-buffer (car adj)) > - (set-marker (car adj) > - (- (car adj) (cdr adj))))))) > + (set-marker (car adj) > + (- (car adj) (cdr adj)))))) IIUC, this is an unintended change in your code, right? > ;; (MARKER . OFFSET) means a marker MARKER was adjusted by OFFSET. > (`(,(and marker (pred markerp)) . ,(and offset (pred integerp))) > - (warn "Encountered %S entry in undo list with no matching (TEXT . POS) entry" > - next) > + (let ((msg > + (concat > + "undo-tree--primitive-undo: " > + (format "Encountered %S entry in undo list with no matching (TEXT . POS) entry" > + next)))) > + (message msg)) What is this change meant to do? > + (_ > + (if (eq next 'undo-tree-canary) > + (message "undo-tree--primitive-undo: catch-all found `%s'." next) > + (error "Unrecognized entry in undo list %S" next))))) This might make sense to work around the problem, but is clearly not an actual fix. IIUC Tony said it looked like a bug in undo-tree. Has there been any progress on finding/fixing the bug there? What is this "canary" meant to do? If it shouldn't signal an error here, maybe rather than the constant `undo-tree-canary`, undo-tree should use another constant value, i.e. one that is a valid (and harmless) undo entry. Stefan