GNU bug report logs - #79200
31.0.50; Duplicated elements for '#<marker at' in buffer-undo-list

Previous Next

Full log

Message #296 received at 79200 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: pipcet <at> protonmail.com, Helmut Eller <eller.helmut <at> gmail.com>,
 Óscar Fuentes <oscarfv <at> eclipso.eu>, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
 79200 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#79200: 31.0.50; Duplicated elements for '#<marker at' in
 buffer-undo-list
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 12:04:27 +0200

Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de> writes:
>>
>>> For what it's worth, I put next--marker-id into my Emacs, just as a
>>> counter, nothing else.
>>>
>>> In my emacs -Q, I do C-h v next--marker-id like you did, and a repeated
>>> g to refresh it.  I get just 76 markers made at each iteration.
>>
>> Also interesting. With emacs -Q -nw, I get a delta of ca. 140, and in
>> the GUI (mac) I get 270.
>>
>>> That makes your 472 look high indeed.  Might it possibly be there's a
>>> bug with DEFVAR_INT somewhere, and that 472 = 8 * 59 has wrongly got the
>>> 3 type bits in it, and is really just 59?  Just a suggestion.
>>
>> I think that's unlikely. There are a lot such defvar, and I think
>> someone would have noticed such a bug.
>
> Another interesting detail that I didn't remember are the values of
> undo-limit and undo-strong-limit. I don't understand why they are so
> high (160000/240000). With 1 undo/s, I could undo for 2 days.
>
> Whatever, Maybe I'm overlooking something here. 

Maybe undo in a region that one has modified longer ago. Hm.

Previous Next

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