Re: process output has become a bit random...

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> 
> > Peter Heslin <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > > On 2004-07-28, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > >  Has anybody else experienced anything weird in connection with process
> > > >  output recently?
> > > 
> > > When running M-x grep recently, I got the output duplicated
> > > several times, which happened on a couple of random occasions.  At
> > > the time I thought it might have been related to the super-slow
> > > grep output bug, but it sounds pretty close to what you describe.
> > 
> > I made a change on 2004-06-07 which increased the read buffer from
> > 1k to 4k.  I don't see how that could provoke duplicate buffer
> > output, though.
> 
> Well, something's rotten in the state of Denmark, anyway.  If you take
> a look at the buffer sizes, you'll see that chars is allocated with a
> size of carryover+readmax, but it is only ever filled with carryover
> old and (readmax-carryover) new characters, for a total of merely
> readmax characters.  

That's true.  I'll fix that.

>                      Consequently, I had at one time patched down
> either the buffer size or increased the read sizes (don't remember
> which it was), but that was later found to cause segmentation faults.
> So the change was reverted, but never explained.

Well, I found and fixed a crash related to the way the "carryover"
characters were saved, so that might have been the explanation.

> 
> I have no clue whether this might be related.
> 
> > Another change which may be relevant is this
> > 
> > 2004-06-11  Kenichi Handa  <address@hidden>
> > 
> >     * coding.c (decode_coding_string): Check CODING_FINISH_INTERRUPT.
> > 
> > Process output handling calls decode_coding_string in such a way that
> > it may not decode an entire string (leaving further decoding to the
> > next call).  If there is some error in that logic, I think text could
> > be duplicated.
> 
> That's a possibility, yes.  Another remote one is that it may coincide
> with myself changing from gcc-3.3.x to gcc-3.4.1.

Anybody else using that version ??

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk