From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#46670: 28.0.50; [feature/native-comp] possible miscompilation affecting lsp-mode Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 20:40:50 +0200 Message-ID: <834khxnykt.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a6ry46uc.fsf@collares.org> <83mtvqpp15.fsf@gnu.org> <835z2eosqn.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9adolkk.fsf@gnu.org> <83o8g5ocyu.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="4009"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 46670@debbugs.gnu.org, mauricio@collares.org, akrl@sdf.org To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 27 19:42:21 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1lG4Xl-0000ub-8W for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:42:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45866 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lG4Xk-00088T-1K for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:42:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42310) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lG4XS-000881-JX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:42:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:33832) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lG4XS-0003bt-CE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:42:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lG4XS-0004AS-8n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:42:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 18:42:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46670 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 46670-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46670.161445127115944 (code B ref 46670); Sat, 27 Feb 2021 18:42:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46670) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Feb 2021 18:41:11 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45378 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lG4Wc-000495-V2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:41:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52516) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lG4Wa-00048r-IO for 46670@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:41:09 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:37113) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lG4WU-00036R-6N; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:41:02 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2354 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lG4WT-0004Iw-5P; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:41:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Pip Cet on Sat, 27 Feb 2021 17:15:20 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:200970 Archived-At: > From: Pip Cet > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 17:15:20 +0000 > Cc: Andrea Corallo , 46670@debbugs.gnu.org, mauricio@collares.org > > > especially after he > > responded to your messages with sound reasons. > > I take it you've read through the code, understood it all, and > concluded the reasons were "sound", then? I have my own ways of judging what people say and deciding when they are sound and when they aren't. If you want to question my judgment as well, you are talking to the wrong guy. > > Please understand that any other way, we'd lose Andrea and any other > > volunteers who come to us with significant new features. > > I have my own opinions about why Emacs attracts so few volunteers and > drives away so many of those who might be. You are welcome to step up to be the Emacs maintainer, and then act according to your opinions. > > What matters to me at this point is the end result. > > Any issue that > > causes mis-compilation of Lisp programs should be fixed, of course. > > Issues that don't affect the natively-compiled code are much less > > important, and as I explained, my tendency is to accept Andrea's > > judgment on those. > > There's a difference between "this issue doesn't affect > natively-compiled code" (which makes it a non-issue, case 2 above) and > "we don't know whether this issue affects natively-compiled code" > (which emphatically does not, case 3 above). Evidence of absence and > all that. When there's evidence, there's no doubt, and such issues should be and are taken care of. Where there's no evidence, we trust the judgment of the best experts we have, when they show (as they usually do) they carefully considered the issue before expressing their opinions. The rest of us, if we don't agree with the expert judgment, get to work harder to find the evidence. There's no way around this. > > > However, the task of proving that this actually results in a > > > Lisp-to-machine-code bug is, in general, too much to expect the > > > initial discoverer to perform. > > > > The initial discoverer doesn't have to do that, it's enough to raise > > the issue. > > Andrea has stated that if there's no reproducer, he doesn't consider > the issue a bug. So "raising the issue" would do, according to the > rules he proposed, precisely nothing. I suggest that you consider deeds before you consider words. I challenge you to find any response from Andrea where he dismissed any report without first considering it seriously and responding to the report with his reasoning. > IIUC, you want me to raise future issues and wait for them to be > dismissed rather than complaining, as I am, about the mere > announcement that they will be? That's certainly something I can do, > and resolving that I'll do that would actually be a good result of > this discussion. > > > did consider it and did fix a couple of issues you brought up that he > > thought were worth fixing. > > Yes. And he said he wouldn't do so in future, for issues of this category. See above.