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: master e8488bcc9c: Avoid having font locking triggering unnecessary auto-saving Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 14:29:05 -0400 Message-ID: References: <165191796540.22789.3432288633082546349@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20220507100605.B7CA7C051FF@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87fsli7uhf.fsf@gnus.org> <87bkw67rru.fsf@gnus.org> <8735hi7r7k.fsf@gnus.org> <87ilqe4roc.fsf@gnus.org> <83levau0r4.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8ue3b9g.fsf@gnus.org> <87mtfq38r3.fsf@gnus.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="34307"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 09 20:31:26 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 1no8AI-0008hr-58 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 09 May 2022 20:31:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35038 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1no8AG-0003BY-Ol for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 09 May 2022 14:31:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55876) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1no889-00022P-By for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 May 2022 14:29:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:4953) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1no886-0000gZ-Ch; Mon, 09 May 2022 14:29:11 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 23B884410B9; Mon, 9 May 2022 14:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B73C8441095; Mon, 9 May 2022 14:29:06 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1652120946; bh=8Bo8rr7dm2tM8e4qJgCfZenYgma4MRkGgV36NNDF0SU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=WSqchxUvyF1j6+EhizuN/bfUi269BZvh6QFAgo4U5CQnhxv/8/0xSKshcc2TQlxrn xJKXx/PYsH5AlOUxCZ0wkurENPcXZXVvyB0iTSK7bMlDNJJABKfNv60XAPD+dX0XIY PDX/v8Q1UvfLM/4xNoujmfHljgPpu0VGJGwsSeJjPtGB9JG29Othvd66+bkAgvxZ53 7neWBVGvTIw8uKqOADplrh3Cmmi/mGDXwVNYd4SG/lbSIrX8G+q6DA8+DEGBZePylq 24AXseQ/0wRaBl2dftgfd6dxBxYH7EX9xRAr8S0MJbbnrl4ZG8zxneuCuOsBrmK8xE 2060Izh4dTN4A== Original-Received: from alfajor (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC4881204C5; Mon, 9 May 2022 14:29:06 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87mtfq38r3.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Mon, 09 May 2022 19:40:00 +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, 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:289545 Archived-At: > - ;; We restore the buffer tick count, too, because otherwise > - ;; we'll trigger a new auto-save. > - (internal--set-buffer-modified-tick ,tick) > - (unless ,modified > - (restore-buffer-modified-p nil)))))) > + (when (or (not ,modified) > + (eq ,modified 'autosaved)) > + (restore-buffer-modified-p ,modified)))))) [ I'd use `(unless (eq ,modified t)` ] But... hmm... what if `body` caused the modified-p status to change from `autosaved` to `nil`. With the old code, we'd leave `nil` untouched, but with the new code we'd re-set it to `autosaved`. Admittedly, it's quite unlikely for `body` to save the buffer (and hence cause the modified-p status to change from `autosaved` to `nil`), so I'm not sure how important this is. > - return BUF_SAVE_MODIFF (buf) < BUF_MODIFF (buf) ? Qt : Qnil; > + if (BUF_SAVE_MODIFF (buf) < BUF_MODIFF (buf)) > + { > + if (BUF_AUTOSAVE_MODIFF (buf) == BUF_MODIFF (buf)) > + return Qautosaved; > + else > + return Qt; > + } > + else > + return Qnil; I'd use ?: for both tests :-) > + else > + { > + if (EQ (flag, Qautosaved)) > + BUF_AUTOSAVE_MODIFF (b) = MODIFF; > + /* If SAVE_MODIFF == auto_save_modified == MODIFF, we can either > + decrease SAVE_MODIFF and auto_save_modified or increase > + MODIFF. */ > + else if (SAVE_MODIFF >= MODIFF) > + SAVE_MODIFF = modiff_incr (&MODIFF); > + } I think this will not do the right thing if you call `(restore-buffer-modified-p 'autosaved)` when modified-p is `nil`. Stefan