[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents
From: |
João Távora |
Subject: |
bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents |
Date: |
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:33:48 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> >> Is that worth the hassle? The caller asked to replace the entire
>> >> buffer by something else, why should they expect after-change hooks to
>> >> be run on something other than the entire buffer?
>> > s/entire buffer/entire accessible portion of buffer/g
>> FWIW I use this on potentially small sections of the buffer, by first
>> narrowing down to it.
> In that case, the after-change hook will be called on the narrowed
> portion of the buffer.
Sorry Eli, my previous assessment of the need for need for tighter
bounds was misleading. I now think I aggree with Stefan's take on this
because:
* Some LSP servers do in fact serve an entirely reformated file even if
the actual change is very small. This is inneficient from these
servers but there's nothing we can do afaik.
* I forgot Eglot *is* using the modification hooks to record and
transmit back changes that it does to files while connected to the
LSP server (yes, even if the file was reformatted from the server
side, LSP specifies we must send back the changes we did to it).
The point here is that if modification hook sees the whole file as
changed, Eglot is just as inneficient as the server.
Thanks very much for the optimization efforts, I'll try to do some
benchmarks once they are in master (they aren't yet right?)
João
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, (continued)
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/06/25
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, João Távora, 2018/06/25
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/06/29
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Stefan Monnier, 2018/06/29
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/06/29
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Stefan Monnier, 2018/06/29
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/06/29
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/06/29
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, João Távora, 2018/06/29
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/06/29
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents,
João Távora <=
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/06/30
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, João Távora, 2018/06/30
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Stefan Monnier, 2018/06/29
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/06/30
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Stefan Monnier, 2018/06/30
- bug#31888: 27.0.50; Segmentation fault in replace-buffer-contents, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/06/30