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: Redisplay hook error backtraces Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 16:07:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <837d4hw5to.fsf@gnu.org> <83ilo0vnwh.fsf@gnu.org> <83fsj4uvjg.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtdct5ze.fsf@gnu.org> <83bktru74y.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="21591"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 14 18:27:33 2022 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 1oC1ga-0005Sq-SJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 18:27:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55672 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oC1gZ-0004H6-JU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 12:27:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oC1NM-00044p-LQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 12:07:40 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:10562 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oC1NI-00061d-Pu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 12:07:40 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 13948 invoked by uid 3782); 14 Jul 2022 16:07:34 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15c93.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.92.147]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 18:07:34 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 10460 invoked by uid 1000); 14 Jul 2022 16:07:33 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83bktru74y.fsf@gnu.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:292158 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 16:59:57 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 13:42:18 +0000 > > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > > > You want to distinguish errors inside condition-case? > > > > More, distinguish the different condition-cases in which errors > > > > might occur. > > > What else is exposed to Lisp? > > I don't understand this question. > There's just one condition-case available to Lisp code, AFAICT, so why > isn't it enough to distinguish condition-case from any other callers of > internal_condition_case* ? I think I understand what you're saying, now. That a condition-case called from Lisp will not use any of the internal_condition_case* functions. So we could just assume that if i_c_case* triggers, it must be one of the hooks we're interested in that called it. I don't think that's right. It might well be that Lisp code calls a C primitive function that itself uses an internal_condition_case. In this scenario, we would not want to generate a backtrace for that nested internal_condition_case. [ .... ] > > > > OK, I have an idea. I restore the variable redisplay_lisping > > > > back into the code (I took it out last night), binding it to true > > > > (or Qt?) at every place in xdisp.c where redisplay calls a Lisp > > > > hook. > > > These all go through a single function, so there's just one place to > > > do that. > > I disagree. There are seven places, for the seven different Lisp hooks > > currently called from redisplay. > Aren't they all go through safe_call? They do, yes, but so do other things that we don't want to engage the backtrace mechanism for. > Which seven places are you talking about? 1. handle_fontified_prop; 2. set_message; 3. clear_message; 4. prepare_menu_bars (near the top); 5. update_menu_bar (line ~54); 6. run_window_scroll_functions; 7. redisplay_window (line ~415). -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).