From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Edebug corrupting point in buffers. Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 08:53:33 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83wn8fcgvd.fsf@gnu.org> <83iljydh7e.fsf@gnu.org> <838rkud9d5.fsf@gnu.org> <83v8nybnuk.fsf@gnu.org> <83pme6bls8.fsf@gnu.org> <83fsf2avbj.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="21404"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 02 14:08:12 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 1oqDTY-0005Kd-94 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 14:08:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oqDFX-0006xP-L2; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 08:53:43 -0400 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 1oqDFV-0006vp-Mm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 08:53:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oqDFU-0007HG-8y; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 08:53:41 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 02052441C3B; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:53:39 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 969BB441C2F; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:53:37 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1667393617; bh=V8s3lNt47GJlI+HS8lwQ08rdCLKK+Alu8KP2+GYySBQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=JuceXGDVDuo46shCMoRfC6Gkwc0+PDI2XLabVpjH0PhRXzhda2xIpsbB9sbeMfwb2 Te4wOBdozdMettkuDIB+T9KeRVv9SWMNz7CvbFZI4VjqvbpfEv5pRZQK3kyyu0t50+ 1QdhV6FsQzvEs+nxeTokOMpQPQ/HnMxbuAMPjEf7QVJ34U88P88oq2n5xq7AEO9UUg NHRW3Xkv9XNNxsEuLO9sABqvD3cNVgVUKhUn1/emT1eusQj7UlGkbTcS2GYmmUWxNg cCVOsfhq2zk8/oNgveyPDoevRozhKZZihSEtgdiNCPH5LaNfWrtX/mYGR6+iyY78Jh pwKZglo/EW6FQ== Original-Received: from pastel (65-110-220-202.cpe.pppoe.ca [65.110.220.202]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 597CC120F32; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:53:37 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83fsf2avbj.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 02 Nov 2022 05:28:48 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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: , Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:299007 Archived-At: >> > Why does set-window-configuration overwrite the buffer-points? The >> > window configuration does not contain them. The code just assumes that >> > the buffer-point should be set to the window point. Of course, we have >> > a race condition if a buffer is displayed in several windows. So this >> > would appear to be a bug, the root cause of the bug in this thread. >> >> This suggests the patch below, right? > > I hope not. We should not change behavior of set-window-configuration > easily, certainly not due to this problem. I'm against this patch, > sorry. I am against it as well. I was mostly using it to ask confirm I had correctly understood the piece of code we were talking about. Stefan