GNU bug report logs - #79009
[PATCH] Improve 'vtable' object handling, cache handling, messages

Previous Next

Full log

Message #65 received at 79009 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stéphane Marks <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
Cc: sbaugh <at> janestreet.com, krisbalintona <at> gmail.com, joostkremers <at> fastmail.fm,
 sbaugh <at> catern.com, 79009 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, visuweshm <at> gmail.com,
 adam <at> alphapapa.net, larsi <at> gnus.org, arstoffel <at> gmail.com, ijqq <at> protonmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#79009: [PATCH] Improve 'vtable' object handling, cache
 handling, messages
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2025 13:36:28 +0300

> From: Stéphane Marks <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 10:22:15 -0400
> Cc: sbaugh <at> catern.com, sbaugh <at> janestreet.com, krisbalintona <at> gmail.com, 
> 	joostkremers <at> fastmail.fm, 79009 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, visuweshm <at> gmail.com, 
> 	adam <at> alphapapa.net, larsi <at> gnus.org, arstoffel <at> gmail.com, ijqq <at> protonmail.com
> 
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2025 at 9:47 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>  > Cc: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh <at> janestreet.com>,
>  >  Kristoffer Balintona <krisbalintona <at> gmail.com>,
>  >  Joost Kremers <joostkremers <at> fastmail.fm>, 79009 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>  >  Visuwesh <visuweshm <at> gmail.com>, Adam Porter <adam <at> alphapapa.net>,
>  >  Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com>,
>  >  ijqq <at> protonmail.com
>  > From: sbaugh <at> catern.com
>  > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:02:56 +0000 (UTC)
>  > 
>  > > My patch is self consistent as far as I can tell.
>  > >
>  > > Once we decide on if we leave equal semantics to the caller, for example, vtable-goto-object call
>  site first locating an object on
>  > > its own, then relying on eq semantics to move point, or allow users to define -object-equal, the rest
>  of my related changes
>  > > (coming shortly after we conclude this part of the discussion) have more cache items repaired, not
>  just these.
>  > >
>  > > We can debate simplifying the cache in a new cache-related patch, yes?
>  > 
>  > Sure.  If we debate it in a new patch, then don't change the cache in
>  > this patch.  If you want to change the cache in this patch, then we have
>  > to debate it now.
> 
>  Can we please have an updated patch that we could discuss and perhaps
>  install?
> 
> I think the ball is in my court.  I've been on holiday (but obv reading email) and will get back to this soon.

Any progress since then?

Previous Next

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