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
Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>> My cimpler recipe is
>>>
>>> 1. Make a new buffer x.el
>>> 2. Type an a
>>> 3. undo
>>> 4. C-h v buffer-undo-list
>>>
>>> =>
>>>
>>> Value:
>>> (nil ("a" . 1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) nil (1 . 2) (t . 0))
>>> Local in buffer x.el; global value is nil
>>
>> I can't reproduce this with my master's build:
>>
>> emacs -Q x.el
>>
>> type an a
>>
>> undo
>>
>> C-h v buffer-undo-list
>>
>> Its value is
>> (nil (#("a" 0 1 (fontified t)) . 1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) nil
>> (1 . 2) (t . -1))
>> Local in buffer x.el; global value is nil
>>
>> However, doing the same with my igc build of 1 of August yields this:
>>
>> Its value is
>> (nil (#("a" 0 1 (fontified t)) . 1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1)
>> (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) (#<marker at 1 in x.el> . -1) nil
>> (1 . 2) (t . -1))
>> Local in buffer x.el; global value is nil
>
> Now I'm completely confused. Your report had
>
> In GNU Emacs 31.0.50 (build 1, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, X toolkit, cairo
> version 1.18.4) of 2025-08-08 built on zen
> Repository revision: 12354bcfdc288f111c411c87e8bdebe6dcb41a4d
> Repository branch: master
>
> but it's not happending in master?
It doesn't happen here with your recipe, I need more elaborate sequences
of inputs mixed with undos/redos. I *think* that multiple undo
boundaries are a requisite.
> And I think, if didn't make a cockpit error, I tested that with master.
> Have to check this later, though.
Maybe from your build's revision to mine something changed. Or, perhaps,
there is a randomness component at play. I just executed emacs under
valgrind and it spewed lots of stuff.
This bug report was last modified 1 day ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.