1:54 a.m.
This
(with-temp-buffer
(message-mode)
(message "Prepare to infloop! Arming ...")
(string-match "^\\([ ]*\\(\\w\\|[-_.]\\)+>+\\)+"
"_______________________________________________\n")
;; not executed if must quit from string-match == infloop
(message "That was a rather short infinity!"))
infloops for me in my current process, but not if I take out the call
to message-mode, and (unfortunately) not at all in a fresh invocation
with -vanilla. I suspect a problem with the syntax table, but that's
as far as I'm going to get today.
I would appreciate it if people would let me know what results are for
a fresh invocation -vanilla, and also if Gnus users with a well-used
Gnus invocation would see if that gives them an infloop. Also in
21.4.recent.
Other suggestions?
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
2:55 a.m.
* Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
This
(with-temp-buffer
(message-mode)
(message "Prepare to infloop! Arming ...")
(string-match "^\\([ ]*\\(\\w\\|[-_.]\\)+>+\\)+"
"_______________________________________________\n")
;; not executed if must quit from string-match == infloop
(message "That was a rather short infinity!"))
infloops for me in my current process, but not if I take out the
call
to message-mode, and (unfortunately) not at all in a fresh invocation
with -vanilla. I suspect a problem with the syntax table, but that's
as far as I'm going to get today.
I would appreciate it if people would let me know what results are
for a fresh invocation -vanilla,
Apart from the time taken to load message-mode it returns almost
immediately. ie, on the 2nd run it does return immediately.
and also if Gnus users with a well-used Gnus invocation would see
if that gives them an infloop. Also in 21.4.recent.
This Gnus has been running since this morning I think (6 or 7 hours
21.4.16)... returns immediately. Should I try when this Gnus is a
couple of days old?
Other suggestions?
Get yourself a goat, and a nice big bucket o'lard. The start
practicing drawing pentagrams.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| XEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. |
| Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! |
|----------------------------------<steve(a)youngs.au.com>---|
9:24 a.m.
Ar an chéad lá is fiche de mí na Nollaig, scríobh Stephen J. Turnbull:
I would appreciate it if people would let me know what results are
for
a fresh invocation -vanilla, and also if Gnus users with a well-used
Gnus invocation would see if that gives them an infloop. Also in
21.4.recent.
"21.4 (patch 13) \"Rational FORTRAN\" XEmacs Lucid" with a Gnus that’s
been
running for a day, at least, and was restarted several times before that,
returns immediately.
Same binary, started with -vanilla, takes the time to load message mode on
the first invocation, but is immediate after that.
"21.5 (beta18) \"chestnut\" (+CVS-20041130) XEmacs Lucid" without a
running
Gnus returns immediately.
Other suggestions?
As you say, it looks like something related to the syntax table. As Steve
says, look into sourcing a goat.
--
“Ah come on now Ted, a Volkswagen with a mind of its own, driving all over
the place and going mad, if that’s not scary I don’t know what is.”
2:25 a.m.
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
This
(with-temp-buffer
(message-mode)
(message "Prepare to infloop! Arming ...")
(string-match "^\\([ ]*\\(\\w\\|[-_.]\\)+>+\\)+"
"_______________________________________________\n")
;; not executed if must quit from string-match == infloop
(message "That was a rather short infinity!"))
infloops for me in my current process, but not if I take out the call
to message-mode, and (unfortunately) not at all in a fresh invocation
with -vanilla. I suspect a problem with the syntax table, but that's
as far as I'm going to get today.
I would appreciate it if people would let me know what results are for
a fresh invocation -vanilla, and also if Gnus users with a well-used
Gnus invocation would see if that gives them an infloop. Also in
21.4.recent.
Other suggestions?
Ben,
You and/or Jan Vroonhof fixed a bunch of bugs in the syntax table code
in spring of 2002. That patch was never applied to 21.4, because it
was part of one of your mega-patches (message id
adrtpho9.fsf(a)xemacs.org) and it was a little too difficult to tease
out of the message. Can you please investigate this gnus infloop
problem in 21.4? Stephen and others think the problem may be related
to the syntax table - I'd really like to robustify that in 21.4, and
I'd even be potentially willing to risk temporarily de-stabilizing the
21.4 branch in order to get that ultimate robustness.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Thanks,
Vin
7040
days inactive
7060
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Aidan Kehoe -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Steve Youngs -
Vin Shelton