From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 19 11:45:17 2016 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Oct 2016 15:45:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39945 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bwt3N-0001bD-Mw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54006) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bwt3L-0001ax-Vx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwt3B-0005nI-8a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:10 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:50530) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwt3B-0005n4-56 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:05 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44948) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwt3A-0006li-4t for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwt36-0005lI-5E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:04 -0400 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:41582) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwt35-0005kB-VV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:00 -0400 Received: from [10.9.9.210] (helo=mailfront10.runbox.com) by bars.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwt31-0007Eq-B0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:44:55 +0200 Received: from c-24-22-244-161.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([24.22.244.161] helo=rainbow.local) by mailfront10.runbox.com with esmtpsa (uid:179284 ) (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) id 1bwt2k-00049b-Nc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:44:39 +0200 From: Gemini Lasswell To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 26.0.50; Incorrect Edebug spec for seq-let Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:44:35 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) The Edebug spec for seq-let is incorrect, causing code that uses it to not work correctly while instrumented for debugging. To reproduce: 1. emacs -Q 2. enter the following code into *scratch*: (defun seq-let-bug () (let ((nums [1 2 3 4 5])) (seq-let (a b c) nums (message "a=%s b=%s c=%s" a b c)))) 3. C-u C-M-x 4. M-: (seq-let-bug) RET Result: a=nil b=nil c=nil Expected result: a=1 b=2 c=3 Changing seq-let's edebug spec to (debug (sexp form body)) fixes this for me. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 19 13:31:31 2016 Received: (at 24738) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Oct 2016 17:31:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39987 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bwuiB-0004HY-4G for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:31:31 -0400 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:37122) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bwui9-0004HP-FK for 24738@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:31:30 -0400 Received: from [10.9.9.213] (helo=mailfront13.runbox.com) by bars.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwui8-0004ml-8F for 24738@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 19:31:28 +0200 Received: from c-24-22-244-161.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([24.22.244.161] helo=rainbow.local) by mailfront13.runbox.com with esmtpsa (uid:179284 ) (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) id 1bwuhP-0004Hw-H8 for 24738@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 19:30:43 +0200 From: Gemini Lasswell To: 24738@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: corrections to steps to repro Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:30:33 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24738 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) I left out a couple of steps, so please use this sequence to reproduce the bug: 1. emacs -Q 2. M-: (require 'seq) RET 3. enter the following code into *scratch*: (defun seq-let-bug () (let ((nums [1 2 3 4 5])) (seq-let (a b c) nums (message "a=%s b=%s c=%s" a b c)))) 4. C-u C-M-x 5. M-: (seq-let-bug) RET 6. G After step 5 the debugger prompt will appear, so the G is to make it continue execution without stopping. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 20 04:03:43 2016 Received: (at 24738) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Oct 2016 08:03:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40309 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bx8KF-0001ls-Bx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:03:43 -0400 Received: from 60.102.92.92.rev.sfr.net ([92.92.102.60]:59466 helo=blueberry.localdomain) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bx8KD-0001lf-7a for 24738@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:03:42 -0400 Received: by blueberry.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EC1E41A5063; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:03:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Nicolas Petton To: Gemini Lasswell , 24738@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#24738: 26.0.50; Incorrect Edebug spec for seq-let In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:03:34 +0200 Message-ID: <87shrr5twp.fsf@petton.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Gemini Lasswell writes: Hi Gemini, > The Edebug spec for seq-let is incorrect, causing code that uses it to > not work correctly while instrumented for debugging. > > To reproduce: > > 1. emacs -Q > 2. enter the following code into *scratch*: > > (defun seq-let-bug () > (let ((nums [1 2 3 4 5])) > (seq-let (a b c) nums > (message "a=%s b=%s c=%s" a b c)))) > > 3. C-u C-M-x > 4. M-: (seq-let-bug) RET > > Result: a=nil b=nil c=nil > Expected result: a=1 b=2 c=3 [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address 0.9 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) [SPF failed: Please see http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom; id=nicolas%40petton.fr; ip=92.92.102.60; r=debbugs.gnu.org] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24738 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Gemini Lasswell writes: Hi Gemini, > The Edebug spec for seq-let is incorrect, causing code that uses it to > not work correctly while instrumented for debugging. > > To reproduce: > > 1. emacs -Q > 2. enter the following code into *scratch*: > > (defun seq-let-bug () > (let ((nums [1 2 3 4 5])) > (seq-let (a b c) nums > (message "a=%s b=%s c=%s" a b c)))) > > 3. C-u C-M-x > 4. M-: (seq-let-bug) RET > > Result: a=nil b=nil c=nil > Expected result: a=1 b=2 c=3 [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.9 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) [SPF failed: Please see http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;id=nicolas%40petton.fr;ip=92.92.102.60;r=debbugs.gnu.org] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Gemini Lasswell writes: Hi Gemini, > The Edebug spec for seq-let is incorrect, causing code that uses it to > not work correctly while instrumented for debugging. > > To reproduce: > > 1. emacs -Q > 2. enter the following code into *scratch*: > > (defun seq-let-bug () > (let ((nums [1 2 3 4 5])) > (seq-let (a b c) nums > (message "a=%s b=%s c=%s" a b c)))) > > 3. C-u C-M-x > 4. M-: (seq-let-bug) RET > > Result: a=nil b=nil c=nil > Expected result: a=1 b=2 c=3 Indeed, thanks for reporting! > > Changing seq-let's edebug spec to (debug (sexp form body)) > fixes this for me. Why sexp instead of form for the first argument? Cheers, Nico --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYCHpWAAoJECM1h6R8IHkQsIMH/2HrcrFFRFojtDZbEBYy0XJQ vgZwtByILjajieBIeCHVmkELXdOWGVkkG7MYvfA0/DFkQTeq1E7cJUYJK8eT6uhy mIOUa7qHh0Z+8pmMJ1Goi3cAgBqNdQKCIsN3UOxlY/B9YhGpLPhtW5UAVrueekQn 5HlTzEL6cVTNr/BpCf/l7DWzVvZAKm07/6SVbOzbgLT8okDpQE/BF4xnreuQWHmZ cTgeX1Hu7wtkEqjmfmP2YHt/DaPFVFcq8AzVpCVQwKR2TbM4KV7IXaYfcN1Xe2j6 4Vz07pMxi8SMtb2a1q5CIxiFRJJf6ciU6kkoXzqR37yu6fh+Oc+ObukH1XnEpN8= =VmbE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 20 10:29:59 2016 Received: (at 24738) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Oct 2016 14:29:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40768 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bxEM3-00041V-99 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:29:59 -0400 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:48890) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bxEM1-00041M-3k for 24738@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:29:57 -0400 Received: from [10.9.9.211] (helo=mailfront11.runbox.com) by bars.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bxELz-0001b3-LW; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:29:55 +0200 Received: from c-24-22-244-161.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([24.22.244.161] helo=rainbow.local) by mailfront11.runbox.com with esmtpsa (uid:179284 ) (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) id 1bxELy-0002NA-2A; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:29:54 +0200 From: Gemini Lasswell To: Nicolas Petton , 24738@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#24738: 26.0.50; Incorrect Edebug spec for seq-let References: <87shrr5twp.fsf@petton.fr> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:29:50 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87shrr5twp.fsf@petton.fr> (Nicolas Petton's message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:03:34 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (darwin) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24738 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Nicolas Petton writes: >> Changing seq-let's edebug spec to (debug (sexp form body)) >> fixes this for me. > > Why sexp instead of form for the first argument? Because it doesn't get evaluated and shouldn't be instrumented. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 20 11:31:47 2016 Received: (at 24738) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Oct 2016 15:31:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40781 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bxFJr-0005SV-GY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:31:47 -0400 Received: from 60.102.92.92.rev.sfr.net ([92.92.102.60]:38186 helo=blueberry.localdomain) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bxFJq-0005SH-D4 for 24738@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:31:47 -0400 Received: by blueberry.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A25521A938E; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:31:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Nicolas Petton To: Gemini Lasswell , 24738@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#24738: 26.0.50; Incorrect Edebug spec for seq-let In-Reply-To: References: <87shrr5twp.fsf@petton.fr> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:31:39 +0200 Message-ID: <87k2d39gv8.fsf@petton.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Gemini Lasswell writes: >> Why sexp instead of form for the first argument? > > Because it doesn't get evaluated and shouldn't be instrumented. Hmm, indeed :) [...] Content analysis details: (2.6 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address 1.3 RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL RBL: Relay in RNBL, https://senderscore.org/blacklistlookup/ [92.92.102.60 listed in bl.score.senderscore.com] 0.9 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) [SPF failed: Please see http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom; id=nicolas%40petton.fr; ip=92.92.102.60; r=debbugs.gnu.org] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24738 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Gemini Lasswell writes: >> Why sexp instead of form for the first argument? > > Because it doesn't get evaluated and shouldn't be instrumented. Hmm, indeed :) [...] Content analysis details: (2.6 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.3 RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL RBL: Relay in RNBL, https://senderscore.org/blacklistlookup/ [92.92.102.60 listed in bl.score.senderscore.com] 0.9 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) [SPF failed: Please see http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;id=nicolas%40petton.fr;ip=92.92.102.60;r=debbugs.gnu.org] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Gemini Lasswell writes: >> Why sexp instead of form for the first argument? > > Because it doesn't get evaluated and shouldn't be instrumented. Hmm, indeed :) I'll apply your changes, thanks! Cheers, Nico --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYCONbAAoJECM1h6R8IHkQu+0IALGRQOwsBj2Pj8dXrrmHXnyD QtDowbE4NVaayENpaPPC93qdYYxVX06OHESimzjvKUHchCzhkBiuCLPsNhVxN8uH H7BS6hWNE2m4/yVBMdr7FhcWPeDmnmHXLiA9HHfK15ygbiNvtekCFBNhUBD0893p VGb5KVmQlYGvlp6M6cjhhKv2SYIDcGPQAzEvPwVqQalH1a/HWEwRZ8mVsMqNn1OQ AVmBPEpZZlrE3Q6ELiXrphU/idFBjbDVARwAlsPfn7l/FRwkp+ibXOy+yz46S0wk aU2gqN3P3bZ8uuRYuiQnVQZxSWBEuiQ/9UW5LCKiEO+svaM5DJNTbNwaHqwLjSg= =FOFN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 24 07:16:34 2016 Received: (at 24738) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Oct 2016 11:16:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52579 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bydF4-0001oU-Kz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:16:34 -0400 Received: from 60.102.92.92.rev.sfr.net ([92.92.102.60]:58572 helo=blueberry.localdomain) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bydF2-0001o3-Mo; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:16:33 -0400 Received: by blueberry.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 90ABC1A9C18; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:16:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Nicolas Petton To: Gemini Lasswell , 24738@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#24738: 26.0.50; Incorrect Edebug spec for seq-let In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:16:26 +0200 Message-ID: <8737jmatf9.fsf@petton.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Gemini Lasswell writes: > The Edebug spec for seq-let is incorrect, causing code that uses it to > not work correctly while instrumented for debugging. I pushed the fix in master, thanks! [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address 0.9 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) [SPF failed: Please see http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom; id=nicolas%40petton.fr; ip=92.92.102.60; r=debbugs.gnu.org] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24738 Cc: 24738-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Gemini Lasswell writes: > The Edebug spec for seq-let is incorrect, causing code that uses it to > not work correctly while instrumented for debugging. I pushed the fix in master, thanks! [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.9 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) [SPF failed: Please see http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;id=nicolas%40petton.fr;ip=92.92.102.60;r=debbugs.gnu.org] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Gemini Lasswell writes: > The Edebug spec for seq-let is incorrect, causing code that uses it to > not work correctly while instrumented for debugging. I pushed the fix in master, thanks! Cheers, Nico --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYDe2KAAoJECM1h6R8IHkQ8fUH/2YyL2cqciNp0rDUSD9QR5wn 6WmmU4+HI2sdEBY2DOPvfGN7ch210yRjMe68lLp8AIRfmeJ6T3h6GW2dhTcdkCEp s5ftperKrpcVru3PSGGu38ubBNvxKC/JzbTOwRs7dY+KI8lNPhxtOGDv2L/JRloO PVA2V8/3GNGVqpBeDwBloYS/gpafGCDQTo5H5V4HdhmelC/yoZZQsvVDYMhDwYiq 4H0EmStjx1d14KZmi9XQp80yJpdZUALy5eyF/sXkt3SV0gOI3kO9XQ4qahQEKx8n f0WjsOyo8buN5AlKlQT4nRYQRQltzmbczleMNFRsRKrTHqYPCrFznD/iEGQicsY= =80ah -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Fri Jun 13 10:02:19 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 12:24:03 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator