GNU bug report logs -
#79200
31.0.50; Duplicated elements for '#<marker at' in buffer-undo-list
Previous Next
Full log
Message #41 received at 79200 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
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 today.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.