From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kenichi Handa Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#11519: "Wrong type argument: characterp" building custom-deps while boostrapping Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 23:10:51 +0900 Message-ID: <8762bn56ok.fsf@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1337782357 31396 80.91.229.3 (23 May 2012 14:12:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:12:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, schwab@linux-m68k.org, 11519@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 23 16:12:34 2012 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 1SXCIh-0003ts-Lt for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 16:12:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60617 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXCIf-0005e8-12 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:12:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44974) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXCIW-0005bK-7d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:12:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXCIQ-0003Q5-0c for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:12:19 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:59447) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXCIP-0003Pp-TF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:12:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SXCJC-0004Ti-7M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:13:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Kenichi Handa Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:13:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 11519 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 11519-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B11519.133778234517167 (code B ref 11519); Wed, 23 May 2012 14:13:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 11519) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 May 2012 14:12:25 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40759 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SXCIa-0004Sq-RZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:12:25 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:39628 ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SXCIF-0004SQ-R3 for 11519@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:12:22 -0400 Original-Received: from 126.229.accsnet.ne.jp ([202.220.229.126]:54859 helo=ubuntu) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXCHN-0001ud-8x; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:11:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 22 May 2012 15:19:12 -0400) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:60303 Archived-At: In article , Stefan Monnier writes: > This brings up back to the issue of calling maybe_unify_char in > STRING_CHAR_AND_LENGTH. One more strike against it. Handa, could you > prepare a patch that removes this? Ok, I'll work on it. But, it's not for 24.1, right? > > If you agree with the diagnosis, then how about the change below? > Might be an acceptable workaround for the emacs-24 branch, yes (tho I'd > replace "inhibit ? 0 : 1" with "!inhibit"). I think it is not just a workaround. If we can suppress buffer/string relocation temporarily, we can utilize that functionality in several other places. --- Kenichi Handa handa@m17n.org