[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#17279: 24.4.50; dired buffer slightly scrambled
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#17279: 24.4.50; dired buffer slightly scrambled |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:32:28 +0300 |
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:49:25 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Cc: 17279@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 22:41:14 -0700
> > From: Ushnish Basu <ubasu@cal.berkeley.edu>
> > CC: 17279@debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> > Yes, it does - thanks for the tip.
>
> Then I guess it's another duplicate of 17269.
Please try the patch below, which I've just committed to the emacs-24
branch:
=== modified file 'src/insdel.c'
--- src/insdel.c 2014-04-14 15:32:27 +0000
+++ src/insdel.c 2014-04-17 07:24:40 +0000
@@ -1857,14 +1857,9 @@ invalidate_buffer_caches (struct buffer
need to consider the caches of their base buffer. */
if (buf->base_buffer)
buf = buf->base_buffer;
- if (buf->newline_cache)
- invalidate_region_cache (buf,
- buf->newline_cache,
- start - BUF_BEG (buf), BUF_Z (buf) - end);
- if (buf->width_run_cache)
- invalidate_region_cache (buf,
- buf->width_run_cache,
- start - BUF_BEG (buf), BUF_Z (buf) - end);
+ /* The bidi_paragraph_cache must be invalidated first, because doing
+ so might need to use the newline_cache (via find_newline_no_quit,
+ see below). */
if (buf->bidi_paragraph_cache)
{
if (start != end
@@ -1888,13 +1883,20 @@ invalidate_buffer_caches (struct buffer
&start_byte);
set_buffer_internal (old);
}
- if (line_beg > BUF_BEG (buf))
- start = line_beg - 1;
+ start = line_beg - (line_beg > BUF_BEG (buf));
}
invalidate_region_cache (buf,
buf->bidi_paragraph_cache,
start - BUF_BEG (buf), BUF_Z (buf) - end);
}
+ if (buf->newline_cache)
+ invalidate_region_cache (buf,
+ buf->newline_cache,
+ start - BUF_BEG (buf), BUF_Z (buf) - end);
+ if (buf->width_run_cache)
+ invalidate_region_cache (buf,
+ buf->width_run_cache,
+ start - BUF_BEG (buf), BUF_Z (buf) - end);
}
/* These macros work with an argument named `preserve_ptr'