GNU bug report logs - #58168
string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies

Previous Next

Full log

Message #95 received at 58168 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 58168 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org
Subject: Re: bug#58168: string-lessp glitches and inconsistencies
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 14:43:09 +0200

6 okt. 2022 kl. 13.13 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>:

>>   (format-message "%\345" 0)
>> => (error "Invalid format operation %å")
> 
> And you want to show %\345 instead?

Maybe, or (as the patch suggested) using a different wording for raw bytes. In any case %å is clearly a lie since that character wasn't in the format string. What would you rather see in such a case?

>  Are you sure this is not the
> consequence of inserting the error message into a multibyte buffer?

Quite sure. The error message is always produced as multibyte and the %c processing done at doprnt.c:471:

	    case 'c':
	      {
		int chr = va_arg (ap, int);
		tem = CHAR_STRING (chr, (unsigned char *) charbuf);

where CHAR_STRING renders chr (the %c argument passed to `error`) as a multibyte char to charbuf here.

>>> Who said anything about #x3fffc?  The original code had #xfc, the
>>> unibyte code for #x3ffffc.
>> 
>> There seems to be a misunderstanding. The original (and current) code attempts to display char #x3fffc, which is not a raw byte. It's just a typo for #x3ffffc -- not a big deal.
> 
> But your change replaced it with \xfc, which is what I questioned.

Oh, I see -- you are looking at the hunk that changed the labels, not the character tested. When 3fffc was changed into 3ffffc, the "expected" string needed to change accordingly; for the latter, it's \xfc or \374 depending on mode.

> Why not test both #x3ffffc and #xfc?  And the same question about
> \777777 vs \374.

Testing #x3ffffc inserts the raw byte #xfc so that takes care of that -- the test already exercised inserting the unibyte raw byte #x80 and the patch didn't change that.

I don't think these two cases actually exercise different paths in redisplay since the buffer is multibyte:

  (insert "\xfc")

and

  (insert (char-to-string #x3ffffc))

should have identical effects on the buffer and hence the display, but it doesn't hurt to have one of each.

\777774 is just octal for #x3fffc which was changed into the (intended) #x3ffffc, and \374 is octal for #xfc which is covered as above.
Thus, the only case actually removed was #x3fffc since it was a typo, and #x10abcd was put in its place.

Previous Next

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