GNU bug report logs - #14681
[gmane.emacs.devel] random 1 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
Subject: bug#14681: closed (Re: bug#14681: [gmane.emacs.devel] random 1
 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 01:26:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#14681: [gmane.emacs.devel] random 1 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 14681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
14681: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=14681
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
To: 14681-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#14681: [gmane.emacs.devel] random 1 second delay in
 comint-redirect-results-list-from-process
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:25:13 +0800

Fixed in trunk.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [gmane.emacs.devel] random 1 second delay in
 comint-redirect-results-list-from-process
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:07:29 +0800

[Message part 4 (message/rfc822, inline)]

Subject: Topics

Topics:
   random 1 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process
   Re: random 1 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process
   Re: random 1 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process
   Re: random 1 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process

[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
To: emacs-devel <at> gnu.org
Subject: random 1 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:06:26 +0800

Hi there,

I am seeing seemingly random delay of 1 second when using
comint-redirect-results-list-from-process, which may be the fault of
(accept-process-output nil 1).

Could someone explain (accept-process-output nil 1)? Any harm in
reducing it to (accept-process-output nil)?

Leo

[Message part 6 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-devel <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: random 1 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:16:12 -0400

> Could someone explain (accept-process-output nil 1)? Any harm in
> reducing it to (accept-process-output nil)?

Rather than nil it should pass the actual process.


        Stefan

[Message part 7 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: emacs-devel <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: random 1 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:04:54 +0800

On 2013-06-20 10:16 +0800, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Rather than nil it should pass the actual process.

Is it OK to apply the following patch?

=== modified file 'lisp/comint.el'
--- lisp/comint.el      2013-05-25 02:40:33 +0000
+++ lisp/comint.el      2013-06-20 05:14:25 +0000
@@ -3726,7 +3726,7 @@
       ;; Wait for the process to complete
       (set-buffer (process-buffer process))
       (while (null comint-redirect-completed)
-       (accept-process-output nil 1))
+       (accept-process-output process))
       ;; Collect the output
       (set-buffer output-buffer)
       (goto-char (point-min))

[Message part 8 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-devel <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: random 1 second delay in comint-redirect-results-list-from-process
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:17:14 -0400

>        (while (null comint-redirect-completed)
> -       (accept-process-output nil 1))
> +       (accept-process-output process))

I think it's OK, tho I think the loop should of course check the return
value of accept-process-output (or else, check that the process is
still running).


        Stefan

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.