From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17666: 24.3.91; [regression] call-process in read-only buffers Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 21:34:55 +0300 Message-ID: <83mwdv9n3k.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874n03jqxr.fsf@gnu.org> <42346.74055.958802.21388@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1401734187 4608 80.91.229.3 (2 Jun 2014 18:36:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17666@debbugs.gnu.org, winkler@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 02 20:36:19 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WrX5m-0000Uj-Om for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:36:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48700 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrX5m-0001iG-6l for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:36:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57817) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrX5c-0001hC-NF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:36:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrX5W-0003mp-7V for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:36:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42384) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrX5W-0003mf-4U for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:36:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WrX5V-0003Sx-Ib for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:36:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:36:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17666 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug wontfix Original-Received: via spool by 17666-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17666.140173411813265 (code B ref 17666); Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:36:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17666) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Jun 2014 18:35:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41261 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WrX4j-0003Rq-Jv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:35:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:52422) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WrX4g-0003RV-IQ for 17666@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:35:11 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N6K001000R4W700@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 17666@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 21:35:03 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N6K001QN0YFT560@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 21:35:03 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:89911 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 13:45:25 -0400 > Cc: 17666@debbugs.gnu.org > > Anyway, it's the prepare_to_modify_buffer in call_process what does it. Actually, I think the problem is that the code there calls decode_coding_c_string even if we read zero bytes from the process. With some coding-systems, this will insert something into the buffer, so the call to prepare_to_modify_buffer is justified. But I agree that the previous behavior was sweeping a subtle bug under the carpet.