From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Francesco =?UTF-8?Q?Potort=C3=AC?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#20629: Fwd: bug#20703: 24.4; Stack overflow in regexp matcher Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 23:46:24 +0200 Message-ID: References: <555EC552.5010600@swipnet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1433108842 27611 80.91.229.3 (31 May 2015 21:47:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 21:47:22 +0000 (UTC) To: 20629@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 31 23:47:11 2015 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 1YzB4X-00086m-UO for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 23:47:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43509 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzB4X-0008WI-FL for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 17:47:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56950) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzB4U-0008WD-CT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 17:47:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzB4R-0008Sm-6j for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 17:47:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53400) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzB4R-0008Sg-2y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 17:47:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YzB4Q-00012w-8P for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 17:47:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <555EC552.5010600@swipnet.se> Resent-From: Francesco =?UTF-8?Q?Potort=C3=AC?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 21:47:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 20629 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 20629-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B20629.14331087933981 (code B ref 20629); Sun, 31 May 2015 21:47:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 May 2015 21:46:33 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35142 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YzB3w-000129-FY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 17:46:32 -0400 Original-Received: from blade3.isti.cnr.it ([194.119.192.19]:39255) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YzB3r-00011x-8F for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 17:46:31 -0400 Original-Received: from tucano.isti.cnr.it ([146.48.81.102]) by mx.isti.cnr.it (PMDF V6.5-x6 #32097) with ESMTPSA id <01PMN53NOSFKMES6FZ@mx.isti.cnr.it> for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 23:46:24 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from pot by tucano.isti.cnr.it with local (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1YzB3o-0005bt-AY for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 23:46:24 +0200 X-INSM-ip-source: 146.48.81.102 Auth Done X-fingerprint: 4B02 6187 5C03 D6B1 2E31 7666 09DF 2DC9 BE21 6115 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:103412 Archived-At: This unrelated bug report contains interesting info: maybe what I and others have assumed is not true and optimising the size of the TAGS file is still a worthwhile objective. If it is indeed important to optimise for size, and if it is important to have tag names both fully qualified and unqualified, then one should consider augmenting the TAGS syntax with an arbitrary number of names per tag. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 18:46:21 +0200 Resent-from: lee@yagibdah.de From: lee@yagibdah.de Subject: bug#20703: 24.4; Stack overflow in regexp matcher To: 20703@debbugs.gnu.org using projectile, trying to find a tag with C-p j The TAGS file is 1.8GB. [...]