GNU bug report logs - #57911
Abolish max-specpdl-size

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 57911 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 57911 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Emacs Bug Report <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2022 13:57:22 +0200

This is a proposal to abolish max-specpdl-size, the user-controllable limit on the internal specpdl stack.

It is safe to do so because unbounded specpdl growth is not possible without proportionally growing the lisp-eval-depth. Therefore, max-lisp-eval-depth suffices as a guard against runaway recursion and unreasonable memory usage as it effectively bounds the specpdl stack as well.

The change would give us some performance benefits but the biggest gain is in user convenience: currently, any code that needs deeper recursion than permitted by default has to set two variables. What values to use is often a matter of puzzlement and guessing since it is far from clear to anyone how they relate.

Why abolish max-specpdl-size rather than max-lisp-eval-depth, if they are connected? First and foremost, because the lisp-eval-depth is easier to explain and understand; the specpdl is an internal implementation detail that most Lisp users don't really have a firm grip on.

Moreover, although each Lisp call currently consumes at least one specpdl entry, this won't necessarily remain true in the future: it should be possible to eliminate that specpdl usage for gains in both speed and memory. In that case, max-specpdl-size would no longer serve as an effective recursion limit.

Concretely, the change would amount to retaining max-specpdl-size as a plain dynamic Lisp variable with no special meaning. We could obsolete it or keep it around indefinitely. A patch will come -- it's all very straightforward.

Message #8 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 09:10:06 +0200

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

> This is a proposal to abolish max-specpdl-size, the user-controllable
> limit on the internal specpdl stack.

I think that sounds like it could be very helpful -- having two
variables that do kinda similar limits here is very confusing.

Message #11 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 08:27:35 -0400

Mattias Engdegård [2022-09-19 11:35:24] wrote:
> diff --git a/lisp/subr.el b/lisp/subr.el
> index d7cdc28abb..0e8cb2fcd6 100644
> --- a/lisp/subr.el
> +++ b/lisp/subr.el
> @@ -376,6 +376,13 @@ ignore-error
>  
>  ;;;; Basic Lisp functions.
>  
> +(defvar max-specpdl-size 2500
> +  "Former limit on specbindings, now without effect.
> +This variable used to limit the size of the specpdl stack which,
> +among other things, held dynamic variable bindings and `unwind-protect'
> +activations.  To prevent runaway recursion, use `max-lisp-eval-lisp-depth'
> +instead; it will indirectly limit the specpdl stack size as well.")
> +
>  (defvar gensym-counter 0
>    "Number used to construct the name of the next symbol created by `gensym'.")

Please mark it as obsolete as well.


        Stefan

Message #14 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 'Eli
 Zaretskii' <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 14:40:58 +0200

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

>> I think that sounds like it could be very helpful -- having two
>> variables that do kinda similar limits here is very confusing.
>
> On we go then, here is the patch.

Cool; that was smaller than I expected.  😀  And I take from Stefan's
response that he has no objections...  Eli, any comments?

Message #17 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 16:54:38 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, "'Eli
>  Zaretskii'" <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 14:40:58 +0200
> 
> Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> I think that sounds like it could be very helpful -- having two
> >> variables that do kinda similar limits here is very confusing.
> >
> > On we go then, here is the patch.
> 
> Cool; that was smaller than I expected.  😀  And I take from Stefan's
> response that he has no objections...  Eli, any comments?

No.

Message #20 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 11:35:24 +0200

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

19 sep. 2022 kl. 09.10 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>:

> I think that sounds like it could be very helpful -- having two
> variables that do kinda similar limits here is very confusing.

On we go then, here is the patch.

[0001-Abolish-max-specpdl-size-bug-57911.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #23 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 17:35:45 +0200

19 sep. 2022 kl. 14.27 skrev Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>:

> Please mark it as obsolete as well.

Will do. It currently causes warnings in Tramp and cc-mode (which I didn't change).

(Let's see when and if this reply is accepted by the debbugs.gnu.org mail circus.)

Message #26 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 18:52:10 +0200

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

Hi Mattias,

> (Let's see when and if this reply is accepted by the debbugs.gnu.org mail circus.)

Earlier today, I've got a message from you for moderator's approval. I
did, and I have also checked the box to trust in you from now
on. Hopefully, this is sufficient.

The circus is in place because there are many spam mails. We moderators
hide them from you, but it isn't as funny as a circus should be.

Best regards, Michael.

Message #29 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 19:09:27 +0200

Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de> writes:

> Earlier today, I've got a message from you for moderator's approval. I
> did, and I have also checked the box to trust in you from now
> on. Hopefully, this is sufficient.

Here's the relevant Received headers for Mattias' that you're responding
to:

Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54975 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1oaJLD-000589-3E
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 12:09:51 -0400
Original-Received: from mail-lj1-f177.google.com ([209.85.208.177]:41743)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>) id 1oaIoL-0001zv-Ao
 for 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 11:35:53 -0400

So debbugs.gnu.org got the message at 11:35:53 -0400, but sent it along
12:09:51 -0400, which is half an hour later.

It seems like half of the messages lately are like this -- they take
everything between a couple of minutes and an hour to pass through the
mailing lists at gnu.org, and it's not just affecting people with
unknown/new mail addresses.

Could it be a high load situation at debbugs.gnu.org or something?

Message #32 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 19:28:31 +0200

19 sep. 2022 kl. 18.52 skrev Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>:

> Earlier today, I've got a message from you for moderator's approval. I
> did, and I have also checked the box to trust in you from now
> on. Hopefully, this is sufficient.

Thank you! I have no complaints about the moderators whatsoever -- as far as I'm concerned you are doing sterling work.
If anything I'm assuming the mistake to be on my side until proven otherwise...

Message #35 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 19:30:31 +0200

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

> So debbugs.gnu.org got the message at 11:35:53 -0400, but sent it along
> 12:09:51 -0400, which is half an hour later.
>
> It seems like half of the messages lately are like this -- they take
> everything between a couple of minutes and an hour to pass through the
> mailing lists at gnu.org, and it's not just affecting people with
> unknown/new mail addresses.
>
> Could it be a high load situation at debbugs.gnu.org or something?

The load average is just 0.31, but I don't know how it was earlier
today.

Best regards, Michael.

Message #40 received at 57911-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 57911-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 19:36:51 +0200

19 sep. 2022 kl. 15.54 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>:

>> And I take from Stefan's
>> response that he has no objections...  Eli, any comments?
> 
> No.

Thank you, pushed to master and closing.

Message #43 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 20:25:12 +0200

Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de> writes:

> The load average is just 0.31, but I don't know how it was earlier
> today.

Here's a mail from emacs-diffs, which exhibits the same behaviour:

Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47358 helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-diffs-bounces+gnu-emacs-diffs=m.gmane-mx.org <at> gnu.org>)
	id 1oaKza-0001VF-MR
	for gnu-emacs-diffs <at> m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 13:55:38 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37560)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <mattiase <at> acm.org>) id 1oaKfd-0002t6-5X
 for emacs-diffs <at> gnu.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 13:35:01 -0400

Received by eggs at 13:35:01 -0400, but not passed on until 13:55:38
-0400 -- 20 minutes later.

So it doesn't look like a debbugs.gnu.org thing, but a general gnu.org
mailing list thing?

Message #46 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
 Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:53:17 +0530

[திங்கள் செப்டம்பர் 19, 2022] Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:

> So it doesn't look like a debbugs.gnu.org thing, but a general gnu.org
> mailing list thing?

Yes, AFAICT, it is a gnu.org mailing list thing.  My messages to
emacs-devel sometimes take hour to reach the list.
On my end, bug-gnu-emacs is slightly better.

Message #49 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
 mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:52:02 +0300

> Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>  Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
>  Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>,
>  Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> From: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:53:17 +0530
> 
> [திங்கள் செப்டம்பர் 19, 2022] Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> 
> > So it doesn't look like a debbugs.gnu.org thing, but a general gnu.org
> > mailing list thing?
> 
> Yes, AFAICT, it is a gnu.org mailing list thing.  My messages to
> emacs-devel sometimes take hour to reach the list.

That's because you aren't subscribed to the list.  Messages posted by
people who aren't subscribed are held for moderation, and I need to
sleep sometimes, and when I do, I cannot approve messages...

Message #52 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
 mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:53:23 +0530

[செவ்வாய் செப்டம்பர் 20, 2022] Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> Yes, AFAICT, it is a gnu.org mailing list thing.  My messages to
>> emacs-devel sometimes take hour to reach the list.
>
> That's because you aren't subscribed to the list.  Messages posted by
> people who aren't subscribed are held for moderation, and I need to
> sleep sometimes, and when I do, I cannot approve messages...

I had no idea that a moderator had to manually approve every message.  I
knew that the first message I sent to debbugs was put behind moderation
but not every message...

Message #55 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:30:24 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> That's because you aren't subscribed to the list.  Messages posted by
> people who aren't subscribed are held for moderation, and I need to
> sleep sometimes, and when I do, I cannot approve messages...

Traditionally, mailing list software allows you to approve new posters
once, and then let them through afterwards without manual intervention.
And these days, with SPF/DKIM/DMARC, that's much safer than in The Olden
Days, since it's next to impossible to forge mail these days (from
domains that implement those things).

Doesn't the gnu.org mailing list software allow that?

Message #58 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
 mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 19:30:57 +0300

> From: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org,  57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com,
>   michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,  monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:53:23 +0530
> 
> [செவ்வாய் செப்டம்பர் 20, 2022] Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >> Yes, AFAICT, it is a gnu.org mailing list thing.  My messages to
> >> emacs-devel sometimes take hour to reach the list.
> >
> > That's because you aren't subscribed to the list.  Messages posted by
> > people who aren't subscribed are held for moderation, and I need to
> > sleep sometimes, and when I do, I cannot approve messages...
> 
> I had no idea that a moderator had to manually approve every message.  I
> knew that the first message I sent to debbugs was put behind moderation
> but not every message...

I'm not talking about debbugs and bug-gnu-emacs mailing list, I'm
talking specifically about emacs-devel (because that's the example you
gave above).

Message #61 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, visuweshm <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 19:36:31 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Cc: Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>,  57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>   mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com,  michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
>   monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:30:24 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > That's because you aren't subscribed to the list.  Messages posted by
> > people who aren't subscribed are held for moderation, and I need to
> > sleep sometimes, and when I do, I cannot approve messages...
> 
> Traditionally, mailing list software allows you to approve new posters
> once, and then let them through afterwards without manual intervention.
> And these days, with SPF/DKIM/DMARC, that's much safer than in The Olden
> Days, since it's next to impossible to forge mail these days (from
> domains that implement those things).
> 
> Doesn't the gnu.org mailing list software allow that?

They do.  I just don't use that option on emacs-devel, because it
would require to clean up the list if/when the person moves on and
stops posting actively.

Message #64 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, visuweshm <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:48:43 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> They do.  I just don't use that option on emacs-devel, because it
> would require to clean up the list if/when the person moves on and
> stops posting actively.

What cleanups are necessary?

Message #67 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, visuweshm <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:27:05 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Cc: visuweshm <at> gmail.com,  57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>   mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com,  michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
>   monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:48:43 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > They do.  I just don't use that option on emacs-devel, because it
> > would require to clean up the list if/when the person moves on and
> > stops posting actively.
> 
> What cleanups are necessary?

To remove from the list the people who moved on and no longer post.

Message #70 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 22:32:56 +0200

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

> Received by eggs at 13:35:01 -0400, but not passed on until 13:55:38
> -0400 -- 20 minutes later.

Whatever it is that's going on, it seems to be getting worse.  For
instance, this message via debbugs (from Eli) took over four hours to
arrive:

Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17])
	by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org <at> gnu.org>)
	id 1oajoi-0002r4-SB
	for geb-bug-gnu-emacs <at> m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 22:26:05 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59341 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1oafOg-0004Gn-Mf
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:42:54 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38332)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <eliz <at> gnu.org>) id 1oafOd-0004GV-Ay
 for 51758 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:42:53 -0400

It's the same problem with emacs-diffs mails, so it's not limited to
debbugs.

Message #73 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>, larsi <at> gnus.org
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:51:29 +0000

>
> I need to sleep sometimes,
>

What???

>
> and when I do, I cannot approve messages...
>

You should try M-x sleepwalking-mode.

Message #76 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
 Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 00:02:09 +0000

>
> Whatever it is that's going on, it seems to be getting worse.  For 
> instance, this message via debbugs (from Eli) took over four hours to 
> arrive:
>

Your post shared the same fate.  Apparently it's during the process of 
expanding the mailing list name to its individual members, on 
lists.gnu.org, that the long delay is introduced.

Message #79 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, michael.albinus <at> gmx.de,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, visuweshm <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#57911: Abolish max-specpdl-size
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:04:19 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> > They do.  I just don't use that option on emacs-devel, because it
>> > would require to clean up the list if/when the person moves on and
>> > stops posting actively.
>> 
>> What cleanups are necessary?
>
> To remove from the list the people who moved on and no longer post.

Is that necessary, though?

It seems like whatever was going on with the gnu.org mail servers has
resolved itself -- today mail seems to be flowing in a speedy fashion
from emacs-diffs and the debbugs mailing list.  It rather puts a cramp
in following discussions when responses to things you're not CC's on
take five hours to arrive...

Message #82 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>,
 Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, emacs-devel <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: master 60102016e4: Abolish max-specpdl-size (bug#57911)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:47:47 +0000

Hello, Lars.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 20:50:15 +0200, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Thanks, Mattias.

> Just a note that this adds a couple of warnings which perhaps Michael
> and Alan can have a look at:

> In c-get-lang-constant:
> progmodes/cc-defs.el:2685:37: Warning: ‘max-specpdl-size’ is an obsolete variable (as of 29.1).
> progmodes/cc-defs.el:2685:15: Warning: ‘max-specpdl-size’ is an obsolete variable (as of 29.1).

I've now fixed these warnings.

> In toplevel form:
> net/tramp-gvfs.el:2511:32: Warning: ‘max-specpdl-size’ is an obsolete variable (as of 29.1).
> net/tramp-gvfs.el:2511:10: Warning: ‘max-specpdl-size’ is an obsolete variable (as of 29.1).
> In tramp-archive-file-name-handler:
> net/tramp-archive.el:351:37: Warning: ‘max-specpdl-size’ is an obsolete variable (as of 29.1).
> net/tramp-archive.el:351:15: Warning: ‘max-specpdl-size’ is an obsolete variable (as of 29.1).

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Message #85 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, emacs-devel <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: master 60102016e4: Abolish max-specpdl-size (bug#57911)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:01:40 +0200

27 sep. 2022 kl. 10.47 skrev Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>:

> I've now fixed these warnings.

Thank you Alan! One detail though:

>   (let ((-varlist- varlist) msp-binding)

Here `-varlist-` aliases `varlist`...

>          (setq -varlist- (delq 'max-specpdl-size -varlist-)))

... the original macro argument is mutated, which is directly from the source code -- maybe don't do that in a macro?
Then we set `-varlist-`, but that's a dead store because...

>     `(let* ,varlist ,@body)))

... we use `varlist`.

Message #88 received at 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
Cc: 57911 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, emacs-devel <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: master 60102016e4: Abolish max-specpdl-size (bug#57911)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:14:55 +0000

Hello, Mattias.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:01:40 +0200, Mattias Engdegård wrote:
> 27 sep. 2022 kl. 10.47 skrev Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>:

> > I've now fixed these warnings.

> Thank you Alan! One detail though:

> >   (let ((-varlist- varlist) msp-binding)

> Here `-varlist-` aliases `varlist`...

> >          (setq -varlist- (delq 'max-specpdl-size -varlist-)))

> ... the original macro argument is mutated, which is directly from the source code -- maybe don't do that in a macro?
> Then we set `-varlist-`, but that's a dead store because...

> >     `(let* ,varlist ,@body)))

> ... we use `varlist`.

Thanks for spotting those mistakes.  I think I've now fixed them with a
second commit.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Previous Next

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