From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: process output has become a bit random... Date: 29 Jul 2004 10:21:26 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1091089285 12924 80.91.224.253 (29 Jul 2004 08:21:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:21:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Peter Heslin , emacs-devel@gnu.org, handa@m17n.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 29 10:21:10 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Bq6A2-0008Bt-00 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:21:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bq6DD-0004yM-6R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:24:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Bq6D5-0004yG-FA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:24:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Bq6Ct-0004up-Me for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:24:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bq6Ct-0004ua-Fn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:24:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [212.88.64.25] (helo=mail-relay.sonofon.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bq69d-0006Zx-GC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:20:45 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 31241 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2004 08:20:44 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk) (213.83.150.2) by 0 with SMTP; 29 Jul 2004 08:20:44 -0000 Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 56 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:26082 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:26082 David Kastrup writes: > storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes: > > > Peter Heslin writes: > > > > > On 2004-07-28, David Kastrup wrote: > > > > Has anybody else experienced anything weird in connection with process > > > > output recently? > > > > > > When running M-x grep recently, I got the output duplicated > > > several times, which happened on a couple of random occasions. At > > > the time I thought it might have been related to the super-slow > > > grep output bug, but it sounds pretty close to what you describe. > > > > I made a change on 2004-06-07 which increased the read buffer from > > 1k to 4k. I don't see how that could provoke duplicate buffer > > output, though. > > Well, something's rotten in the state of Denmark, anyway. If you take > a look at the buffer sizes, you'll see that chars is allocated with a > size of carryover+readmax, but it is only ever filled with carryover > old and (readmax-carryover) new characters, for a total of merely > readmax characters. That's true. I'll fix that. > Consequently, I had at one time patched down > either the buffer size or increased the read sizes (don't remember > which it was), but that was later found to cause segmentation faults. > So the change was reverted, but never explained. Well, I found and fixed a crash related to the way the "carryover" characters were saved, so that might have been the explanation. > > I have no clue whether this might be related. > > > Another change which may be relevant is this > > > > 2004-06-11 Kenichi Handa > > > > * coding.c (decode_coding_string): Check CODING_FINISH_INTERRUPT. > > > > Process output handling calls decode_coding_string in such a way that > > it may not decode an entire string (leaving further decoding to the > > next call). If there is some error in that logic, I think text could > > be duplicated. > > That's a possibility, yes. Another remote one is that it may coincide > with myself changing from gcc-3.3.x to gcc-3.4.1. Anybody else using that version ?? -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk