Re: [Patch] hard-widen-limits [was Re: Syntax tables for multiple modes [was: bug#22983: syntax-ppss returns wrong result.]]

[Vitalie Spinu]

>> On Sun, Apr 24 2016 18:48, Andreas Schwab wrote:

> Vitalie Spinu <address@hidden> writes:

>>>> On Sun, Apr 24 2016 18:19, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>
>>> Vitalie Spinu <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 24 2016 15:20, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Vitalie Spinu <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -1692,7 +1692,7 @@ exec_byte_code (Lisp_Object bytestr, Lisp_Object 
>>>>>> vector, Lisp_Object maxdepth,
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>          CASE (Bwiden):
>>>>>>            BEFORE_POTENTIAL_GC ();
>>>>>> -          PUSH (Fwiden ());
>>>>>> +          TOP = Fwiden (TOP);
>>>>
>>>>> You are clobbering the stack here.  Instead of pushing a new value you
>>>>> are overwriting an unrelated value on the stack.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. I pick an argument form the stack and put the return 
>>>> value in
>>>> it. This is what all one-arg functions do in bytecode.c.
>>
>>> But nobody is pushing that argument.
>>
>> I am not pushing anything.

> Exactly.  This opcode takes no argument, and you cannot change that.

Could you please elaborate a bit where you think the problem is?

What exactly I cannot change? I am changing the number of argument of widen
(from zero to one) and adjusting the byte code table. Do you say that's not the
right way to do it? How should I do it then?


  Vitalie