From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Info: Console Vs GUI difference? Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:37:53 +0200 Message-ID: <83eh70d12m.fsf@gnu.org> References: <52710DA9.2060704@poczta.onet.pl> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1383291502 7733 80.91.229.3 (1 Nov 2013 07:38:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 07:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jarekczek@poczta.onet.pl, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 01 08:38:26 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1Vc9JK-0008Fg-3r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 08:38:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60627 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vc9JJ-0005lv-Nx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:38:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50964) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vc9JB-0005lZ-Lh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:38:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vc9J5-0000AG-SM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:38:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:58836) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vc9J5-00009W-Jz; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:38:11 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MVK00E00QDDUA00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:38:09 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MVK00EM2QJJNK80@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:38:09 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:164778 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:23:17 -0400 > From: Richard Stallman > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > But why do you call it a problem or an error? Since the signals are > caught, everything is alright. That's what I think and said so in bug > report 15670 [1]. And that's the reason why the bug was closed as "not a > bug". > > It may not cause incorrect functioning, but it sounds like a cause > of slowdown. Unless there is a reason why redisplay is supposed > to raise a signal, this is making Emacs slower than it needs to be, > and investigating the cause might be useful. The cause is clear. Redisplay does not raise a signal, it just evaluates conditions of a menu bar item, to be able to display the "Next" item as disabled when there's no "next" node. The Lisp code that is invoked by redisplay to do that throws an error that is supposed to be caught by that Lisp code. However, Emacsspeak advises the Lisp function Info-extract-pointer, which is involved in this evaluation, with the result that the thrown error becomes visible. See the Lisp backtrace here: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15670#5 and the Lisp code involved here: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15670#14 So the bottom line here is that the reason for the problem was a bad/suboptimal advice used by Emacsspeak to advise the Info functions in question.