July 1999 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: "Stack overflow in regexp" 25 years, 4 months

Jan Vroonhof

Justin Vallon <vallon(a)mindspring.com> writes: > I think the (regexp internal fail_stack) stack size can be increased on > all platforms from 2000 to 20000 at the cost of 16000*4 ~= 64k. I just had a glance at it too, but isn't the maximum (on a 32 bit machine). 2 * re_max_failures * MAX_FAILURE_ITEMS * 4 Where MAX_FAILURE_ITEMS = 5 * 3 + 5 = 19 thus the cost is about 38 times higher. And on a 64-bit machine it is about 80 times higher. Which more or less explains why DEC OSF's 2MB stack gives problems. Does anybody know why regexp lets its stack grow exponentially? Jan

2 participants
1 comments

Re: Updates to "Current version" messages at ftp.xemacs.org 25 years, 4 months

Jason R Mastaler

"Kevin Oberman" <oberman(a)es.net> writes: > I think either Steve or Jason needs to update the messages at > ftp://ftp.xemacs.org/pub/xemacs. When you connect to the directory, > you get: > Current Version: 21.1.2 > and the README file contains: > Current Version: 20.4, released February 28, 1998 > Current semi-experimental Version: 21.0.67, released March 25, 1999 These have now been updated. They now match the website as well.

1 participants
0 comments

[Robert Kerr <kerrr@et.byu.edu>] Strange xemacs warning 25 years, 4 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

Anyone know what causes this?

3 participants
2 comments

Re: [crash] Opening frame across ssh from inside a screen. 25 years, 4 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

I'll find the report in BTS, and if the crash happens again and I have time, I'll see about debugging it. >>>>> "Gunnar" == Gunnar Evermann <ge204(a)cus.cam.ac.uk> writes: Gunnar> Why was there no stacktrace eye catcher in your backtrace, Gunnar> anyway? Overly aggressive inlining by egcs? I only mailed the top of the trace. It was long, and everything seemed likely normal up until it went to open the display across the ssh link. Gunnar> Still it would be great if you could figure this out! Yes, if and when I can. I am NOT expert with a debugger. I am still a C novice. I can read and understand much but not all, and have never written a program. I need to read my books rather than all this email.

1 participants
0 comments

Updates to "Current version" messages at ftp.xemacs.org 25 years, 4 months

Kevin Oberman

I think either Steve or Jason needs to update the messages at ftp://ftp.xemacs.org/pub/xemacs. When you connect to the directory, you get: Current Version: 21.1.2 and the README file contains: Current Version: 20.4, released February 28, 1998 Current semi-experimental Version: 21.0.67, released March 25, 1999 Updating these should be part of the process of building a new kit. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman(a)es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [Success] XEmacs 21.1.4 "Arches", i386-pc-win32 25 years, 4 months

Adrian Aichner

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes: Jan> Adrian Aichner <aichner(a)ecf.teradyne.com> writes: >> (custom-set-faces >> - '(default ((t (:family "Courier New" :bold nil :italic nil))) t) >> + '(default ((t (:background "white" :bold nil :italic nil))) t) >> '(gui-button-face ((t (:foreground "black" :background "white"))) t) >> >> This works fine with 21.2-b17+ with your frob-face-property patch applied. >> >> However, the new setting for face 'default does not work for >> 21.1-b2 >> 21.1.3 >> 21.1.4 Jan> Please define 'does not work' more exactly. Note that the new Please see: APA> When the problem APA> (http://www.xemacs.org/list-archives/xemacs-beta/9906/msg00235.html) APA> first occured in 21.2-b16 I modified my .emacs like this: Jan> customize specifier stuff is written to fix real problems Jan> that occur when mixing old and new ways of setting the Jan> fonts. So it is not in itself surprising that there are Jan> problems with the old method. However we need to check we Jan> didn't introduce any new ones by accident in the 21.1.x Jan> series. This is why I spent 1/4 of a night building 21.2-b2, 21.1.3, 21.1.4 again to track down the problem. The result is that '(default ((t (:background "white" :bold nil :italic nil))) t) exposes the same problem under 21.1.[2-4] as '(default ((t (:family "Courier New" :bold nil :italic nil))) t) did under 21.2-b1[67] until your frob-face-property patch came along. HTH, Adrian

1 participants
0 comments

Re: "Stack overflow in regexp" 25 years, 4 months

Jan Vroonhof

Justin Vallon <vallon(a)mindspring.com> writes: > a) Is there anyway to make the regexp stack larger? This is the process stack, use 'ulimit' from your shell. Are you on Digital Unix? > b) Does a larger regexp stack hurt performance? (a little memory isn't > that expensive, but I wouldn't want to slow things down) It shouldn't cost you at all on modern operating systems. Jan

3 participants
5 comments

Re: [Robert Kerr <kerrr@et.byu.edu>] Strange xemacs warning 25 years, 4 months

Jan Vroonhof

Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> writes: > Does anyone read the FAQ (not a rhetorical question)? Is it too > big and foreboding now? What can we do to integrate the FAQ > knowledge back into the binary so that the user can benefit from > it without having to actually read it? Simply putting the text into the warning doesn't help. c.f. the X modifier keys warnings. -- Jan Vroonhof http://www.math.ethz.ch/~vroonhof/ Mathematik, vroonhof ＠ math.ethz.ch HG E16, ETH-Zentrum, Tel: +41-1-6325456/25154 Raemistrasse 101, CH-8092 Zuerich. Fax: +41-1-6321085

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Patch: Promoting characters to 31 bits (for discussion) 25 years, 4 months

Jan Vroonhof

Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> writes: > We don't really have to use long long, we can mandate use of > the union type and put a 32-bit integer into the Lisp_Object > union. Lisp_Objects will necessarily be 64-bit objects at this If we go that far, just allowing a 'float' value for point on the lisp side would be another option. Jan

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [Success] XEmacs 21.1.4 "Arches", i386-pc-win32 25 years, 4 months

Jan Vroonhof

Adrian Aichner <aichner(a)ecf.teradyne.com> writes: > (custom-set-faces > - '(default ((t (:family "Courier New" :bold nil :italic nil))) t) > + '(default ((t (:background "white" :bold nil :italic nil))) t) > '(gui-button-face ((t (:foreground "black" :background "white"))) t) > > This works fine with 21.2-b17+ with your frob-face-property patch applied. > > However, the new setting for face 'default does not work for > 21.1-b2 > 21.1.3 > 21.1.4 Please define 'does not work' more exactly. Note that the new customize specifier stuff is written to fix real problems that occur when mixing old and new ways of setting the fonts. So it is not in itself surprising that there are problems with the old method. However we need to check we didn't introduce any new ones by accident in the 21.1.x series.

1 participants
0 comments

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

XEmacs-Beta July 1999