Subject: Re: bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation

From: Gerd Möllmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 13:29:43 +0200

Pip Cet <[email-masked]> writes:

> Gerd Möllmann <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Gerd Möllmann <[email-masked]> writes:
>>
>>> So, one could, theoretically store the charpos in a field of a marker
>>> when "unchaining" it. Ugly, but doable.
>>
>> And one could do something practically, which I now pushed to savannah.
>
> Can you explain how that works in the non-indirect buffer case?  

Yes, it doesn't :-).

> AFAICT, we call marker_vector_reset but not marker_vector_remove in
> that case, and there is no code in marker_vector_reset to remember the
> last charpos. And the comment in marker_vector_reset sounds like it's
> not called at all in the IGC case?

You mean this:

  /* The old GC contains at least one assertion that unchaining markers
     in kill-buffer resets the markers' buffers.  IGC does not do this,
     can't do this, and does not need it.  */

What I meant there is what I described in my mistaken mail before, that
it can't do anything with the markers. But if they are dead, who cares.
CLassic thinko.

I'll remove these comments.

Thanks!