GNU bug report logs - #36591
26.2; Term's pager seems broken

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Adam Bliss <abliss <at> gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:28:04 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: fixed

Found in version 26.2

Fixed in version 26.3

Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #50 received at 36591 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> gmail.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, abliss <at> gmail.com, 36591 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#36591: 26.2; Term's pager seems broken
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:57:52 -0400
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Hm...  the problem was really when you call `set-process-filter' more
> than once?

The problem is when you call (set-process-filter PROC t) and then
(set-process-filter PROC FILTER), where FILTER is not t.  The first time
we correctly do delete_read_fd, but on the second time, we don't call
add_process_read_fd on PROC's fd, so we never hear from it again.

For a minimal example with subprocesses (not sockets), see
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?msg=17;att=1;bug=36591;filename=bug-36591-proc-filter-t.el

> I do not think connect_network_socket is called more than once per
> process...  so I don't think it should be a problem?  But the logic is
> rather difficult to follow.

Yeah, quite difficult.  I guess the question is whether
connect_network_socket will call add_process_read_fd even the first time
though.  I think not.  But there are other calls to add_process_read_fd,
so it's possible that we end up listening to the socket anyway.





This bug report was last modified 4 years and 271 days ago.

Previous Next


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