GNU bug report logs -
#79200
31.0.50; Duplicated elements for '#<marker at' in buffer-undo-list
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Hello, Gerd.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:53:40 +0200, Gerd Möllmann wrote:
> 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.
I think those limits are numbers of bytes, not numbers of undo
operations. A single kill command in a big buffer could easily fill
these numbers of bytes.
I more wonder why those limits are so low. It's a long time since PCs'
RAM capacity was measured in mere megabytes.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
This bug report was last modified today.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.