From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#11073: 24.0.94; BIDI-related crash in redisplay with certain byte sequences Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:04:22 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1333037102 10490 80.91.229.3 (29 Mar 2012 16:05:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:05:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 11073@debbugs.gnu.org To: Kenichi Handa Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 29 18:05:00 2012 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 1SDHqI-0007vA-8s for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:04:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40330 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SDHqH-000183-Cf for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:04:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47021) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SDHq9-00017q-M9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:04:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SDHq4-0007AE-UD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:04:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.43] (port=38226 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SDHq4-00079K-Qg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:04:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SDIKQ-0007KG-2w for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:36:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:36:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 11073 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 11073-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B11073.133303895328146 (code B ref 11073); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:36:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 11073) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Mar 2012 16:35:53 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45058 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SDIKH-0007Jv-0y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:35:53 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:39852) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SDIKF-0007Jo-9B for 11073@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:35:51 -0400 Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q2TG4M3E032267; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:04:22 -0400 Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 8660FB4507; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:04:22 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Kenichi Handa's message of "Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:19:50 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4176=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9309 : core <4176> : streams <742149> : uri <1092189> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:58286 Archived-At: >> I understand this part. The part I don't understand is why we do >> unification when reading a char from the buffer's text. That is: why >> unify chars in `int' (or Lisp_Object) form but not in the >> internal-utf-8 representation? >> I would expect the unification to happen during encoding/decoding > Usually, yes. But as far as there is a code space in high > area for a CJK charset, it is unavoidable to have a > buffer/string that contains a character represented by a > byte sequence in that high area as the test case of > Bug#11073. And, as "unification" means to treat such a > character the same way as the unified character, I thought > they both have the same character code. Since there are two internal byte-sequence representation, I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't have 2 internal int representations. I.e. if unification failed for the byte-sequence (which might be the result of a bug, for all I know), we may as well keep them non-unified in the int representation. Stefan