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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:40:05 +0200 Message-ID: References: <555EC552.5010600@swipnet.se> <556B893C.60502@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1433112083 9443 80.91.229.3 (31 May 2015 22:41:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 22:41:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 20629@debbugs.gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 01 00:41:11 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 1YzBup-0002va-B4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:41:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43621 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzBuo-0007fe-KT for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 18:41:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35532) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzBul-0007eF-6d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 18:41:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzBui-0007ze-1l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 18:41:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53428) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YzBuh-0007zY-VG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 18:41:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YzBuh-0002Ig-6V for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 18:41:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org 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 22:41:03 +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=B20629.14331120128772 (code B ref 20629); Sun, 31 May 2015 22:41:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 May 2015 22:40:12 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35170 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YzBts-0002HP-11 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 18:40:12 -0400 Original-Received: from blade4.isti.cnr.it ([194.119.192.20]:28655) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YzBtp-0002HG-6g for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 18:40:10 -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 <01PMN6Z88EZMMESDPG@mx.isti.cnr.it> for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:40:06 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from pot by tucano.isti.cnr.it with local (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1YzBtl-0005tr-QG; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:40:06 +0200 In-reply-to: <556B893C.60502@yandex.ru> 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:103415 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. > >I'm guessing it's not the file size that led to the stack overflow >problem there. Most probably, in fact. That's why I said the bug was unrelated. However, it contains interesting info: TAGS file sizes of 2 GB are not out of order. This means that caring about file size is a worthwhile goal. With the consequences I had mentioned in my previous mail.