GNU bug report logs - #35968
Release 26.3

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 35968 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 35968 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: npostavs <at> gmail.com
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Release 26.3
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 17:13:42 -0400

Tracking bugs to fix before releasing Emacs 26.3.

I'm thinking of the following:

#35767 26.1; byte compiler lost warning about calling define-key with wrong number of arguments
       - regression from 25.3, has a simple fix.
       - https://debbugs.gnu.org/35767#8
#29220 26.0.90; eieio-persistent-read fail to restore saved object.
       - regression from 25.3, reasonably simple partial (conditional on eieio-backward-compatibility) fix.
       - https://debbugs.gnu.org/29220#193
#35739 [w32] Bad signature from GNU ELPA for archive-contents
       - fixed in master
       - for emacs-26 need something less invasive
#35770 [PATCH] Broken duplicate case elimination in switch byte-compilation
       - regression from 25.3, fixed in master
       - for emacs-26 just disable optimization (?)

Message #8 received at 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> gmail.com>
To: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35968: Release 26.3
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 18:25:16 -0400

npostavs <at> gmail.com writes:

> Tracking bugs to fix before releasing Emacs 26.3.
>
> I'm thinking of the following:

Maybe also

#35557 26.1; false positive: Match data clobbered by buffer modification hooks

Though I'm not sure exactly what to do about it.

Message #11 received at 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: npostavs <at> gmail.com
Cc: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35968: Release 26.3
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 19:04:56 +0300

> From: npostavs <at> gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 17:13:42 -0400
> 
> Tracking bugs to fix before releasing Emacs 26.3.
> 
> I'm thinking of the following:
> 
> #35767 26.1; byte compiler lost warning about calling define-key with wrong number of arguments
>        - regression from 25.3, has a simple fix.
>        - https://debbugs.gnu.org/35767#8
> #29220 26.0.90; eieio-persistent-read fail to restore saved object.
>        - regression from 25.3, reasonably simple partial (conditional on eieio-backward-compatibility) fix.
>        - https://debbugs.gnu.org/29220#193
> #35739 [w32] Bad signature from GNU ELPA for archive-contents
>        - fixed in master
>        - for emacs-26 need something less invasive
> #35770 [PATCH] Broken duplicate case elimination in switch byte-compilation
>        - regression from 25.3, fixed in master
>        - for emacs-26 just disable optimization (?)

I'm okay with doing everything where we have a simple enough fix,
which means all but the penultimate bug.

Thanks.

Message #14 received at 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Proposed clean-compile patches for release 26.3
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 18:10:24 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I propose the attached patches for Emacs 26.3, to help it compile 
cleanly with more-recent software (GCC 9, librsvg 2.45.1). The idea is 
mainly to avoid bug reports from people who would otherwise send us 
these diagnostics. Most of these patches are already in master; the 
exceptions (patches 2 and 5) are for parts of Emacs that are typically 
not compiled in master.

[0001-Suppress-GCC-9-no-longer-supported-messages.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

[0002-Pacify-GCC-when-compiling-unexelf.c-on-Fedora-30.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

[0003-Simplify-xd_signature-to-pacify-GCC-9.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

[0004-Pacify-librsvg-2.45.1-and-later.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

[0005-Pacify-GCC-9-Wredundant-decls.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

Message #17 received at 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35968: Proposed clean-compile patches for release 26.3
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 17:03:32 +0300

> From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 18:10:24 -0700
> 
> I propose the attached patches for Emacs 26.3, to help it compile 
> cleanly with more-recent software (GCC 9, librsvg 2.45.1). The idea is 
> mainly to avoid bug reports from people who would otherwise send us 
> these diagnostics. Most of these patches are already in master; the 
> exceptions (patches 2 and 5) are for parts of Emacs that are typically 
> not compiled in master.

Thanks.  I'm okay with all these changes, with one possible exception:

> @@ -351,10 +348,6 @@ size_t _bytes_free;
>  /* Are you experienced?  */
>  int __malloc_initialized;
>  
> -#else
> -
> -static struct list _fraghead[BLOCKLOG];
> -
>  #endif /* HYBRID_MALLOC */
>  
>  /* Number of extra blocks to get each time we ask for more core.

This hunk seems to be just an aesthetic cleanup.  Does it cause any
warnings/errors during compilation?  If not, I'd prefer to leave it
out, for paranoia reasons.

Message #20 received at 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35968: Proposed clean-compile patches for release 26.3
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 15:30:15 -0700

On 5/30/19 7:03 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> This hunk seems to be just an aesthetic cleanup. Does it cause any 
> warnings/errors during compilation? If not, I'd prefer to leave it 
> out, for paranoia reasons.

Yes, if the hunk is omitted, _fraghead is defined twice and GCC complains:

  gmalloc.c:353:20: error: redundant redeclaration of ‘_fraghead’ 
[-Werror=redundant-decls]
    353 | static struct list _fraghead[BLOCKLOG];
    |                    ^~~~~~~~~
  gmalloc.c:185:20: note: previous declaration of ‘_fraghead’ was here
    185 | static struct list _fraghead[BLOCKLOG];
    |                    ^~~~~~~~~

So I installed the patches as-is.

Message #23 received at 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> gmail.com>
To: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35968: Release 26.3
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 19:07:02 -0400

>> Tracking bugs to fix before releasing Emacs 26.3.
>>
>> I'm thinking of the following:
>
> Maybe also
>
> #35557 26.1; false positive: Match data clobbered by buffer modification hooks

Oops, I meant rather

#35264 "Match data clobbered by buffer modification hooks" when hooks only shifted match-data's markers

Is the patch in https://debbugs.gnu.org/35264#8 okay (generally, and
specifically for emacs-26)?

Message #26 received at 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> gmail.com>
To: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35968: Release 26.3
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 21:27:55 -0400

> Is the patch in https://debbugs.gnu.org/35264#8 okay (generally, and
> specifically for emacs-26)?

For the record, I mention that this patch definitely won't go to
emacs-26, and might be problematic generally (refer
https://lists.gnu.org/r/emacs-devel/2019-06/msg00036.html).

There are no outstanding patches for emacs-26 at the moment.

Message #29 received at 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35968: Release 26.3
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 05:35:09 +0300

> From: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 21:27:55 -0400
> 
> There are no outstanding patches for emacs-26 at the moment.

Thanks, I asked Nicholas to produce a pretest.

Message #32 received at 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Petton <nicolas <at> petton.fr>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35968: Release 26.3
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 22:00:21 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Thanks, I asked Nicholas to produce a pretest.

I'm on it :-)

Cheers,
Nico

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #35 received at 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Nicolas Petton <nicolas <at> petton.fr>
Cc: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, npostavs <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#35968: Release 26.3
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 05:30:35 +0300

> From: Nicolas Petton <nicolas <at> petton.fr>
> Cc: 35968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 22:00:21 +0200
> 
> > Thanks, I asked Nicholas to produce a pretest.
> 
> I'm on it :-)

Thanks.

Previous Next

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