From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `message' not outputting the newline "atomically" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:37:20 +0200 Message-ID: References: <83y31xr3aa.fsf@gnu.org> <26154872-1a5c-7302-0f32-b16aff8e0ae7@cs.ucla.edu> <83blytq90m.fsf@gnu.org> <95de57fb-ef8c-a65f-d3ca-4a9e7f0f38bc@cs.ucla.edu> <83a7ecquzb.fsf@gnu.org> <83tvckp5ni.fsf@gnu.org> <83r27op1wb.fsf@gnu.org> <60d1b05d-ef4c-252a-0626-8c69c103fdf0@cs.ucla.edu> <83o92rpk1g.fsf@gnu.org> <9d07a8e2-7f9b-bbfa-b73e-0d7aee09b099@cs.ucla.edu> <83zhmankgu.fsf@gnu.org> <31b12a41-18f2-d20c-55dc-28f7adb8606c@cs.ucla.edu> <83y31tm40j.fsf@gnu.org> <6f34c3a3-2f0a-e581-0dfe-4e4619e0b3dc@cs.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="187736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: schwab@suse.de, Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 23 13:37:51 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hf0oh-000mi4-AD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:37:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44136 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hf0of-0004hs-Pa for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 07:37:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36521) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hf0oM-0004hl-RY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 07:37:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hf0oK-00074Y-Uv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 07:37:30 -0400 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:47790) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hf0oK-0006nq-Nz; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 07:37:28 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=stories) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hf0oC-0005WQ-DL; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:37:22 +0200 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAMFBMVEUiISExMTNbWlza29vy 8u+Xlpm+v79GSUmjo6Tq6+aurq76+vj29vT////9/vyGgodtKnEUAAAAvklEQVQ4jWO4iwMwEJC4 8haHxL29pBqFAFdI1oFLYgvplqNJXMElgVUHanCcxaVjL6WuIkbiHLLElR/2i79afP62NvL2smyI wxjugBx7o/wTm2BCKbsy601FmFGX5wLJq3++iim1/xdULT8bAPUJxKhbCt/ZChNKBZUUPAtQLL/Z 5rpy2YmYVVm3vLuQJGCexXAuRtIh0YPDXuKmC5E60EMSi4QvYaN24pLAiKg76Ebd9MUhgdVVxErc xiVxGQDQU8nJVNDCdgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== In-Reply-To: <6f34c3a3-2f0a-e581-0dfe-4e4619e0b3dc@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Sun, 23 Jun 2019 01:34:05 -0700") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 80.91.231.51 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:238055 Archived-At: Paul Eggert writes: > Line-buffered stderr does a better job of interleaving diagnostics > from parallel instances of Emacs, and this is what prompted the fix in > question. The poorly-interleaved diagnostics have been a practical > problem that has bugged me for a while, and bugs Lars and I assume > others. Yeah, I'm using Emacses in batch mode extensively for doing various tasks (even triggering from remotes to control the lighting in my apt), and I've seen messed-up output in these places before, so I think it's very nice that it's fixed. > In contrast, unbuffered stderr's only advantages mentioned so > far have been theoretical. I do share Eli's worries here that there are some cases where having stderr being line-buffered would lead to unforeseen situations, and altering `message' to add the newline in the string being output would be a safer solution. But you said that that required more invasive rewriting of the `message' machinery, so I think it makes sense at least to try the current approach for a few months and see whether anything untoward is uncovered... -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no