GNU bug report logs - #9319
Compilation fontification regression

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 9319 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 9319 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> jurta.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Compilation fontification regression
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:47:01 +0300

1. Comparing etc/compilation.txt in side-by-side frames
   with versions 23.1 and 24.0 (current Bzr trunk)
   reveals the regression in fontification
   of some compilation error/warning messages.
   I see differences in the following sections:

* IBM jikes, Sparc Pascal, GCOV, Podchecker
  - errors/warnings not highlighted,
    so this looks like a bug.

* ant
  - warning highlighted with `error' face.  But maybe this change
    is based on the user's request, I don't know.

Other changes between 23.1 and 24.0 look like bug fixes
that provide more correct fontification.

2. Sometimes errors/warnings are not fontified at all.
   For instance,

   C-x C-f etc/compilation.txt RET
   C-s RET symbol: sun RET

i.e. non-incremental search that goes directly to the given section,
fontifies nothing.

But scrolling slowly with C-v from the beginning of the
etc/compilation.txt buffer, fontifies everything.

Message #8 received at 9319 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> jurta.org>
Cc: 9319 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9319: Compilation fontification regression
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:10:32 -0400

Juri Linkov <juri <at> jurta.org> writes:

> * IBM jikes, Sparc Pascal, GCOV, Podchecker
>   - errors/warnings not highlighted,
>     so this looks like a bug.
>
> * ant
>   - warning highlighted with `error' face.  But maybe this change
>     is based on the user's request, I don't know.
>
> Other changes between 23.1 and 24.0 look like bug fixes
> that provide more correct fontification.
>
> 2. Sometimes errors/warnings are not fontified at all.
>    For instance,
>
>    C-x C-f etc/compilation.txt RET
>    C-s RET symbol: sun RET
>
> i.e. non-incremental search that goes directly to the given section,
> fontifies nothing.

Both problems were due to incorrect code in compilation-error-properties
causing it to signal an error for error definitions with nil filenames,
introduced when Stefan revamped compile.el.  I've committed a fix.

Message #13 received at 9319 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> jurta.org>
To: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>
Cc: 9319 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9319: Compilation fontification regression
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:48:08 +0300

> Both problems were due to incorrect code in compilation-error-properties
> causing it to signal an error for error definitions with nil filenames,
> introduced when Stefan revamped compile.el.  I've committed a fix.

Thanks, now this is fixed.

I noticed another regression: in etc/compilation.txt the line

  tool1 -output=foo foo.x

is highlighted incorrectly.

This is caused by revno:102131 from:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2010-10/msg01018.html

I fixed this by reverting to the old regexp and removing just one
unnecessary question mark.  Now all these samples are highlighted
correctly:

tool -o foo.o foo.c
tool -o=foo.o foo.c
tool -output foo.o foo.c
tool -output=foo.o foo.c
tool -outfile foo.o foo.c
tool -outfile=foo.o foo.c
tool --output foo.o foo.c
tool --output=foo.o foo.c
tool --outfile foo.o foo.c
tool --outfile=foo.o foo.c

whereas the following are not highlighted:

tool --omega foo.c
tool --output-html-file foo.c

Previous Next

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