From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CC Mode troubles and Emacs 29 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 17:37:18 +0000 Message-ID: References: <874jt0hw7p.fsf.ref@yahoo.com> <874jt0hw7p.fsf@yahoo.com> <838ribq48f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgarhl7j.fsf@yahoo.com> <83zgarodeh.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8lfgpwf.fsf@yahoo.com> <83k01uo8db.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="662"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Po Lu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 10 19:40:26 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pFJXt-000AJj-V2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 19:40:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pFIYw-0002WP-10; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:37:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pFIYu-0002W0-4x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:37:24 -0500 Original-Received: from mx3.muc.de ([193.149.48.5]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pFIYs-0000uK-9R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:37:23 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 37759 invoked by uid 3782); 10 Jan 2023 18:37:20 +0100 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe1594f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.89.79]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:37:19 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5948 invoked by uid 1000); 10 Jan 2023 17:37:18 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83k01uo8db.fsf@gnu.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.5; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mx3.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:302321 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 14:57:04 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Po Lu > > Cc: Alan Mackenzie , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:05:36 +0800 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 15:48:12 +0000 > > >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > >> From: Alan Mackenzie [ .... ] > > >> One of the bugs is bug #59671. [ .... ] > > That's just one bug of many. If you look at the CC Mode bug tracker for > > November, you'll see a lot of bugs that boil down to this: after 25 to > > 60 minutes of editing in a buffer, the entire buffer is filled with > > green splotches (making fontification useless) and C Mode has to be > > re-enabled, because CC Mode keeps misrecognizing and fontifying > > identifiers as types. > If this is so, I find it strange that we don't have heaps of bug > reports about this in our bug tracker. We do have such heaps, where "this" is understood to be about the fontification bugs, one of which Gregory accurately summarised. Some of these bugs are 58534, 58537, 58795, 58796, 58772, 58883, 59032, 59070, 59233, 59267, 59051, 59427, which have all been fixed. Additionally there are 59234, 59671 (the bug mentioned earlier) for which patches are available but not yet committed, and 59216, for which there is, as yet, no patch. > I doubt that anyone could ignore the terrible misbehavior you describe, > if indeed the description is accurate and not exaggerated. I don't think there was exaggeration, here. > I guess we will have to wait till the pretest to see how bad that is > in practice. Why shouldn't I fix it before the pretest? As mentioned above, the patch is available. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).