From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Oleh Krehel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CC-mode highlight change between 24.5 and 25 Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2016 12:01:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87r38tcrxl.fsf@oremacs.com> References: <878tvaeco8.fsf@oremacs.com> <20160902132704.GC4439@acm.fritz.box> <87poomcrm3.fsf@oremacs.com> <20160904153800.GB3554@acm.fritz.box> <87d1kid7cj.fsf@oremacs.com> <20160905152034.GA4899@acm.fritz.box> <874m5tp2rw.fsf@oremacs.com> <20160906170217.GA6388@acm.fritz.box> <20160907141013.GC2145@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1473415360 26139 195.159.176.226 (9 Sep 2016 10:02:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 10:02:40 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 09 12:02:35 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1biIdX-0004hD-80 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 12:02:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56913 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1biIdV-0001gx-5J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 06:02:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45491) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1biIdO-0001gg-5M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 06:02:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1biIdL-0005hb-1m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 06:02:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:36992) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1biIdK-0005hR-SW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 06:02:06 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id w12so23552139wmf.0 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 03:02:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=XEg6SquIFlvd+sLkwfKUanMvGNECaMQrPSxqrP56U14=; b=Una3FDCzpdT5eXh7PVn8rQJG1ehzNkQGOUpXOhSIxLaUHjCGnMhm8hrwpxLvjHzTdo NsgQ56QgxPAiOheCvlCVWY2l2UTrD3tixNof1C4CKjCEywmXv54Ijmv+5xyB8yECltu+ qImApk357/aysPNVI5a/Nw6PFJAkteEVOUkoUGOltcPV2zhIAxlhOTUCgNzITGW2HCbw 6LnwSvTHeGuUT4nJff6ul2qMgiRfzOUE+3DjTEFLz6Jdr5pqVVNwrQm2GA39kilVdl/x oRJPYeyJXOxisx5mX6VGoBaY6xqYVRWZ0DJUeTRt2xEIYFddQpF0cV6v5SIiXpgnfeOR 6IgA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNFq/i2Jpu/FlM0nNkqYNlzkDx4ui+F/OzTohwVBtoVOKG9FoYWXVTYxv6ZgHEeDg== X-Received: by 10.28.207.73 with SMTP id f70mr1991871wmg.29.1473415325926; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 03:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (mail2.sioux.nl. [213.126.128.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u64sm2522346wmd.20.2016.09.09.03.02.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Sep 2016 03:02:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160907141013.GC2145@acm.fritz.box> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:10:13 +0000") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 74.125.82.44 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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 Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:207306 Archived-At: Hi Alan, > OK, time for a fresh patch. We're getting there, slowly. > > This patch should fix the problems with cctest.cc, as described in my > last post. It also fixes a problem in the "top-level" counting where > the comma in "class foo : bar, baz { ...." caused the code to think that > the "...." weren't at top level. > > Again, please try this out on your real C++ code, and let me know how > well it fares. Thanks for the update. Everything looks good. All functions are highlighted as functions, and non-functions aren't. I'll keep an eye out for outliers, but it seems very solid now. Oleh