From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Heerdegen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#46908: 28.0.50; Dozens of spurious markers in buffer-undo-list Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 01:51:00 +0100 Message-ID: <87y2f1m7ez.fsf@web.de> References: <87o8fzn9fa.fsf@web.de> <0ca78c1b-7737-8a87-9edc-deaa551677fa@gmx.at> <87wnumswhr.fsf@web.de> <6ccba248-7643-280a-4560-88872fb08457@gmx.at> <87sg5asr6k.fsf@web.de> <7b04f87b-8d7a-e151-5b4a-d77bd6ea1506@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28064"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 46908@debbugs.gnu.org, Yuan Fu To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 06 01:52:16 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 1lILB2-0007C3-Ba for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 01:52:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56500 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lILB0-00064z-PO for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:52:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45298) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lILAp-00064r-3l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:52:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:52415) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lILAo-00058l-Hg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:52:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lILAo-0001RU-FJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:52:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 00:52:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46908 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 46908-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46908.16149918715485 (code B ref 46908); Sat, 06 Mar 2021 00:52:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46908) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2021 00:51:11 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35728 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lIL9z-0001QO-2f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:51:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:46779) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lIL9x-0001Q9-16 for 46908@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:51:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1614991861; bh=y2BotJtjkJrHl+1DUwICeOoutvvzFG/kj3QN9E1aKrU=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=E9RBsekf4Ysd1+DY16MVc9YX49zT6JxlcLTdz/N9MHsYXTMcp3GrSoqS9ETNUS1hL jlF/4hCJ5aBSu+qRtHhQWaDyJf/yRHdDfiD1I1/0k4wHIFxucnUH0QPOlPpe4Vqz37 UhuhIjqfcAWMn4lEPQRvcmFpGh92jIopLlrvvbLQ= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Original-Received: from drachen.dragon ([94.218.220.60]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb101 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MVchv-1lGvYQ1sB5-00YyVL; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 01:51:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <7b04f87b-8d7a-e151-5b4a-d77bd6ea1506@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Fri, 5 Mar 2021 10:50:35 +0100") X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:vFPqXk+cfiHo7+vlFsx447fXZ/JVSM/E4FOBu1PV5ikqPjUKMBY aI3iBTJ94kfTgSPDX6ZpxVdArqRp01amENF6lzYv19U1qUIEpVMlYpVkLI9/0X3WWIqbbFR YaGIZlM8Y7t0kFs9fEun2IWCIODiIpBQXpPDBitByHEAzdsGnP3RPz6B1x+o6UkqRhjJP7X dZRH+oI9WefR6c1zzDYYA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:XFOMnpRCijg=:JkBhbolzy6Y+/WijRWXrVK khI7ymZ4A/WFYDDrWB7e85v7x4HDecwtu9yyDXKMW9zl0U+sAOwa6p6dMz9oV1v2zzrsLIVs7 cvaHLpHM4O+DG2RZQSuOGkaUf+ROmRKYz6vcLcouD/z5JjauBEu+NyevMx/FwnStGlL3IoAwS 9cl3E35aR6VO2rifHYE0JqW20nGf6wkE8bCypVCRYzRF2A7+Rrc564I4O6lakFqwTALwljA1w /Oi8Bhd+Vly3MTVW6QKrJnD3cs5JxAz8tAmsUF5JZhIhVzj3I1k3rw/aGYBmh44oy4zhL/Auk QAuVGN7+Mz17hn4c11Jn5Rv8gmWDDj5OgK0dN2RzjrultryhsS2UZhT8HftOg9s1ADXUAftPG vjxGqTuzqZFz8UFAMY3o+Ltltvne6mQbr1B6OPApi30phP9C3dBWYzuJcE+XuM1DDVIIGU+W0 iwo4+AX9sINeticCY810y4jmg4CO7jaPk52JHWYoJyNImGCZJ3q+36e1PB5pEWmyd4dq3pi6v Pcll57lz3huE5cEQsQrgdFlom1XOWSHmyrABIXlh3+zd3BMgW3c6OtBxTzJl74HnQ3mowLEt7 1ll4AG+gGAF2QiQ+XTSXsCI5gRRQSz1T7A64nIvLVCMAaErx6PTedK+CEOORhCcOXgGeqbGXm +uW0NFpWFn5z5m6pFLT/b8dnI1QdZVg/8jFl18RLGVVCLZ9bTjP4BiWRlHNoyBn8IEEIIC/eK n5HrIv20OZLggJRlWb3bQ3KYgVCNx5UHZlzG/ZFVAMBsI3iR5dmh3TnzKCSC1xmfA/uJjRzg 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:201586 Archived-At: martin rudalics writes: > > I tried it now. The only thing I can say is that with Emacs 27 it > > usually returns 0 or 1 here while with master it returns 10. So maybe > > you should try (after verifying what I found out) to trace the recent > > changes in master. > > The "it" above is `count-markers-in-buffer-undo-list'. And with "trace" > I really meant "bisect". But make sure to check first what I said about > the Emacs 27 behavior - YMMV. I cannot confirm that, no. I can reproduce the issue in a newly built Emacs 27 as well as in the 27 that comes with Debian. "It" again being `count-markers-in-buffer-undo-list'. My question is what amount of that is pathological. A lot of code creates markers "on the fly", a lot, e.g. jit-lock or yank (push-mark) or display-buffer. When undo is performed before gc is run, they end in buffer-undo-list. Does making a marker point to nil with `set-marker' then make it suitable for garbage collection? I guess not. My observation: if I set undo-buffer-list to nil after reproducing the issue, `count-markers-in-buffer-undo-list' reports "0" afterwards. So I wonder whether what we see is maybe normal business and an unfortunate side effect of undo recording marker positions and gc running not often enough to prevent these accidents? I can continue testing with emacs-26 if you want. Regards, Michael.