From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Potential GC-related problems in compose_chars_in_text
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:01:33 -0400
Message-ID: <E1EG4bd-0000Rh-7n@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <E1EEceq-0000U4-00@etlken>
	<m3mzmixxtc.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk>	<E1EFD7U-0000gq-13@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<E1EFRhk-0005Xy-00@etlken> <E1EFjgX-0000gd-7I@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<E1EFlFR-0001Bf-00@etlken>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1126833049 1264 80.91.229.2 (16 Sep 2005 01:10:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:10:49 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: storm@cua.dk, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 16 03:10:47 2005
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EG4jW-0007zO-1l
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:09:42 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EG4jV-0004WN-E6
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:09:41 -0400
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EG4eb-00030W-Qm
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:04:41 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EG4eK-0002qS-Im
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:04:21 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EG4eK-0002p8-30
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:04:20 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EG4be-0001cB-H3
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:01:34 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1EG4bd-0000Rh-7n; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:01:33 -0400
Original-To: Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>
In-reply-to: <E1EFlFR-0001Bf-00@etlken> (message from Kenichi Handa on Thu, 15
	Sep 2005 13:21:21 +0900)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:42975
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/42975>

    Isn't it better to avoid using something like "offset++" as
    an argument of a macro even if we know that it's currently
    safe.

I see no danger in it--most of our macros are safe, and we keep them
that way.  If you think it would be cleaner to rewrite that, I don't
mind if you do.  But there may not be any clean way to do it.