From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master c69858b3f0: ; * lisp/treesit.el (treesit-ready-p): Guard against empty buffers. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:57:38 -0500 Message-ID: References: <166916717199.12853.3816069320355351676@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20221123013252.46814C004B6@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <83o7sxzwhn.fsf@gnu.org> <83cz9dzt8k.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32177"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, casouri@gmail.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 23 15:58:22 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1oxrCg-00087e-48 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 15:58:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxrC6-0002ZM-Ky; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:57:46 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxrC5-0002ZE-NK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:57:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxrC3-0006wq-PI; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:57:45 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D196C1000EF; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:57:41 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0C2E81000DF; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:57:40 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1669215460; bh=gc27vGugAUCSF9x/siP/eRFydIs5nnQe2HIx9scjiHw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=cOJTf1TP7H7WGWjJJv5rpQP4byfcUQ+UVXHN5swXbbyFvS//e42vUDFQgocFQAhTw rWDZf9SqTPNsR2gAQfdT7HCIoYT8Cl8/oIDLQp3IbRi7GYL/dxCY9Gv5gMqR3KmQN4 +TSFBcU6b3iNi3YhiVm04C9UwIFNG2hHIQjFpPfDoX/eEAa3vuymF8o6ED77K+liyz lBqme6eGiwSDy6DKENtbjVtMuvssxAG/e3ze5f6KPR3O7HJAhC/56+PLo+pyU8Gv0z Xg3Fyt8CpNDIoZWaOK2pcrTeqL+yW2bwrhMjxeeI0uXK2yRoOQV53GLhn5prSTZWq7 w+k99mPJVS8bA== Original-Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C81FA12045B; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:57:39 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83cz9dzt8k.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 23 Nov 2022 15:38:03 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:300395 Archived-At: >> But my question was not so much pointing out a problem but trying to >> understand why we chose the more complex code. > Because we need to compare with byte positions, Ah, because we wrote "(in bytes)" in the docstring of `treesit-max-buffer-size`. That's a rather unusual choice. All other places were we use(d) a limit on the buffer size it's always been based on the number of chars. I doubt it would make a significant difference here either (e.g. not only the "10 times" memory use of the tree-sitter tree is obviously a rough approximation, but I doubt it's related to the number of bytes more than to the number of chars or even the number of lexemes). Stefan