From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6952: jit-lock with default, small chunk-size causing incorrect fontification in cc-mode Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:29:35 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1283251210 26208 80.91.229.12 (31 Aug 2010 10:40:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6952@debbugs.gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 31 12:40:08 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqOG6-0000Uf-G8 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:40:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39025 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OqOG5-0004vi-EW for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:40:05 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50873 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OqOFr-0004uH-Cx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:39:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqOFp-0007ow-V3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:39:51 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:56798) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqOFi-0007kF-Ly; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:39:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqNpu-0005XE-9o; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:13:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, bug-cc-mode@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:13:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6952 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs,cc-mode X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6952-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6952.128324957021267 (code B ref 6952); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:13:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6952) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Aug 2010 10:12:50 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqNpc-0005Wy-Iy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:12:50 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqNpI-0005Wj-Bm for 6952@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:12:42 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (vpn-132-204-232-70.acd.umontreal.ca [132.204.232.70]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o7VADud6028171; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:13:56 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 6C4E6660DF; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:13:55 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Daniel Colascione's message of "Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:52:45 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3611=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:13:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:39852 Archived-At: > Presumably, the underlying cause is jit-lock asking cc-mode to start > or stop fontification in an unexpected place. I doubt the error is in jit-lock, because the assumptions made by jit-lock.el are almost identical to the ones made by the non-jit-lock code. Jit-lock relies more heavily on some of those assumptions, tho, so it's probably more difficult to reproduce without jit-lock, but reproducing it without jit-lock might be the best way to debug the problem. Stefan