GNU bug report logs - #30910
26.0.91; Incorrect Edebug spec for def-edebug-spec

Please note: This is a static page, with minimal formatting, updated once a day.
Click here to see this page with the latest information and nicer formatting.
Package: emacs; Reported by: Gemini Lasswell <gazally@HIDDEN>; Keywords: confirmed; dated Thu, 22 Mar 2018 19:59:01 UTC; Maintainer for emacs is bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN.

Message received at 30910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org:


Received: (at 30910) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Jul 2019 13:03:35 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 18 09:03:35 2019
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53592 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1ho64M-0008NM-OP
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:03:35 -0400
Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:36594)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <larsi@HIDDEN>) id 1ho64K-0008NA-Pm
 for 30910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:03:33 -0400
Received: from [80.169.244.84] (helo=sandy)
 by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <larsi@HIDDEN>)
 id 1ho64F-0006Xm-Hx; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:03:31 +0200
From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@HIDDEN>
To: Gemini Lasswell <gazally@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#30910: 26.0.91; Incorrect Edebug spec for def-edebug-spec
References: <87h8p76fz2.fsf@HIDDEN> <87v9w4zopq.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87pnmbort7.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:03:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87pnmbort7.fsf@HIDDEN> (Gemini Lasswell's message of "Mon,
 15 Jul 2019 15:29:08 -0700")
Message-ID: <87h87j8pgh.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 Content preview: Gemini Lasswell <gazally@HIDDEN> writes: > Lars
 Ingebrigtsen
 <larsi@HIDDEN> writes: > >> But you say that it has an edebug spec, but:
 >> >> (symbol-plist 'def-edebug-spec) >> => nil > > Do (require 'edebug)
 first, then that will work. 
 Content analysis details:   (-2.9 points, 5.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.0000]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30910
Cc: 30910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

Gemini Lasswell <gazally@HIDDEN> writes:

> Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@HIDDEN> writes:
>
>> But you say that it has an edebug spec, but:
>>
>> (symbol-plist 'def-edebug-spec)
>> => nil
>
> Do (require 'edebug) first, then that will work.

Ah, right:

(symbol-plist 'def-edebug-spec)
=> (edebug-form-spec (&define :name edebug-spec name &or "nil" edebug-spec-p "t" "0" (&rest edebug-spec)))

>> I thought that perhaps saying something like
>>
>> (eval-and-compile
>>   (put 'def-edebug-spec 'edebug-form-spec '(sexp sexp)))
>>
>> might be a fix, but it doesn't seem to have any effect...
>
> (def-edebug-spec def-edebug-spec (&rest sexp))
>
> would be a fix, but so would be deleting it entirely.

Yeah, I guess.

> Since there is no code needing to be debugged inside of an Edebug spec,
> the only reason I can think of for having an Edebug spec for
> def-edebug-spec is to check whether the specs defined with it are
> validly formed.  The error messages issued during Edebug spec matching
> are not very good, but maybe someone will be inspired to do something
> about that someday.

The current spec was added with this helpful commit message:

commit 1fe3d50701adcd8929745edf24158a4a50459ea0
Author: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@HIDDEN>
Date:   Thu Mar 24 20:38:34 1994 +0000

    New version from author.

And this is the code, that has gone virtually unchanged since 1994.
Note the "Out of date" comment, which was there in 1994:

;;;;* Spec for def-edebug-spec
;;; Out of date.

(defun edebug-spec-p (object)
  "Return non-nil if OBJECT is a symbol with an edebug-form-spec property."
  (and (symbolp object)
       (get object 'edebug-form-spec)))

(def-edebug-spec def-edebug-spec
  ;; Top level is different from lower levels.
  (&define :name edebug-spec name
	   &or "nil" edebug-spec-p "t" "0" (&rest edebug-spec)))

(def-edebug-spec edebug-spec-list
  ;; A list must have something in it, or it is nil, a symbolp
  ((edebug-spec . [&or nil edebug-spec])))

(def-edebug-spec edebug-spec
  (&or
   (vector &rest edebug-spec)		; matches a vector
   ("vector" &rest edebug-spec)		; matches a vector spec
   ("quote" symbolp)
   edebug-spec-list
   stringp
   [edebug-lambda-list-keywordp &rest edebug-spec]
   [keywordp gate edebug-spec]
   edebug-spec-p  ;; Including all the special ones e.g. form.
   symbolp;; a predicate
   ))

So it does sound more like a test for whether the specs are well-formed,
and not really...  anything with edebug proper?

> Right now the only Edebug specs that get matched to the def-edebug-spec
> definition are the ones declared with def-edebug-spec, not the ones in
> macro definitions, because:
>
> (get-edebug-spec 'defmacro)
> => (&define name lambda-list lambda-doc
> 	 [&optional
> 	  ("declare" &rest sexp)]
> 	 def-body)
>
> If we had a Edebug spec for Edebug specs that wasn't broken, we could
> change the defmacro spec to use it, and see what happens.

Right.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:
bug#30910; Package emacs. Full text available.

Message received at 30910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org:


Received: (at 30910) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Jul 2019 22:29:26 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 15 18:29:26 2019
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49344 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1hn9TK-0006oS-BT
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 18:29:26 -0400
Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:58294)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <gazally@HIDDEN>) id 1hn9TI-0006oK-AY
 for 30910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 18:29:25 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=runbox.com; 
 s=rbselector1;
 h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:
 References:Subject:Cc:To:From;
 bh=BhbrUJIb6F4096a6SIUAwnaPirKJ1/bO/idkx5OQlzY=; b=YLM563WITVULZ6irO0mEl290C2
 EmwWXKl+3/LTrG4sPsiMqrvum+caXeYtquTlJc7bkcqOpmkr0vi720aWy3a0FHFa5AbZIIAQQdZLc
 sQ/jy2+wtZSKtU4okrDC+3+pgRPq5TZOz/poVUYYjSRxcV+bOKWx8p2+YFQMsFrxM2gfz/rHIYFdu
 96ErAo/CYZlPiHtKI66UOuE2Y7srw22HNjG/+j2Ywj5laMSR/CyssL7CI4DdOmivQRwvuNk8irisa
 1eerAAsYE/iiQwwAYKI0zWd4GzkVdFuo0ow3M59rloI1v1vfGHSyr00M9pL9B+L8eqmfeOSPkXC4S
 V6eUI5Iw==;
Received: from [10.9.9.203] (helo=mailfront21.runbox)
 by mailtransmit02.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
 (envelope-from <gazally@HIDDEN>)
 id 1hn9TG-0000JA-Fv; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 00:29:22 +0200
Received: by mailfront21.runbox with esmtpsa (uid:179284 )
 (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1)
 id 1hn9T5-0002bs-J5; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 00:29:12 +0200
From: Gemini Lasswell <gazally@HIDDEN>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#30910: 26.0.91; Incorrect Edebug spec for def-edebug-spec
References: <87h8p76fz2.fsf@HIDDEN> <87v9w4zopq.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 15:29:08 -0700
In-Reply-To: <87v9w4zopq.fsf@HIDDEN> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of
 "Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:16:01 +0200")
Message-ID: <87pnmbort7.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2.90 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30910
Cc: 30910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@HIDDEN> writes:

> But you say that it has an edebug spec, but:
>
> (symbol-plist 'def-edebug-spec)
> => nil

Do (require 'edebug) first, then that will work.

> I thought that perhaps saying something like
>
> (eval-and-compile
>   (put 'def-edebug-spec 'edebug-form-spec '(sexp sexp)))
>
> might be a fix, but it doesn't seem to have any effect...

(def-edebug-spec def-edebug-spec (&rest sexp))

would be a fix, but so would be deleting it entirely.

Since there is no code needing to be debugged inside of an Edebug spec,
the only reason I can think of for having an Edebug spec for
def-edebug-spec is to check whether the specs defined with it are
validly formed.  The error messages issued during Edebug spec matching
are not very good, but maybe someone will be inspired to do something
about that someday.

Right now the only Edebug specs that get matched to the def-edebug-spec
definition are the ones declared with def-edebug-spec, not the ones in
macro definitions, because:

(get-edebug-spec 'defmacro)
=> (&define name lambda-list lambda-doc
	 [&optional
	  ("declare" &rest sexp)]
	 def-body)

If we had a Edebug spec for Edebug specs that wasn't broken, we could
change the defmacro spec to use it, and see what happens.
Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:
bug#30910; Package emacs. Full text available.

Message received at 30910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org:


Received: (at 30910) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Jul 2019 14:16:13 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 14 10:16:13 2019
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45555 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1hmfIS-0007Vi-IS
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 10:16:12 -0400
Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:52840)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <larsi@HIDDEN>) id 1hmfIQ-0007TH-OW
 for 30910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 10:16:11 -0400
Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie)
 by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <larsi@HIDDEN>)
 id 1hmfIH-00032A-UV; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:16:04 +0200
From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@HIDDEN>
To: Gemini Lasswell <gazally@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#30910: 26.0.91; Incorrect Edebug spec for def-edebug-spec
References: <87h8p76fz2.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:16:01 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87h8p76fz2.fsf@HIDDEN> (Gemini Lasswell's message of "Thu,
 22 Mar 2018 12:57:21 -0700")
Message-ID: <87v9w4zopq.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 Content preview: Gemini Lasswell <gazally@HIDDEN> writes: >
 def-edebug-spec has an Edebug spec,
 which fails to match the valid > Edebug specs in lisp/emacs-lisp/cl-macs.el.
 > > To reproduce, load cl-macs.el and: > > M-x edebug-all-defs RET > M-x
 eval-buffer [...] 
 Content analysis details:   (-2.9 points, 5.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.0000]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30910
Cc: 30910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

Gemini Lasswell <gazally@HIDDEN> writes:

> def-edebug-spec has an Edebug spec, which fails to match the valid
> Edebug specs in lisp/emacs-lisp/cl-macs.el.
>
> To reproduce, load cl-macs.el and:
>
> M-x edebug-all-defs RET
> M-x eval-buffer RET
>
> Result: edebug-syntax-error: Invalid read syntax: "Expected one of",
> "nil", edebug-spec-p, "t", "0", (&rest edebug-spec)

This bug is still present on the trunk.

But you say that it has an edebug spec, but:

(symbol-plist 'def-edebug-spec)
=> nil

I thought that perhaps saying something like

(eval-and-compile
  (put 'def-edebug-spec 'edebug-form-spec '(sexp sexp)))

might be a fix, but it doesn't seem to have any effect...

Here's the backtrace:

Debugger entered--Lisp error: (invalid-read-syntax "Expected one of" "nil" ede
  signal(invalid-read-syntax ("Expected one of" "nil" edebug-spec-p "t" "0" (&
  edebug-syntax-error("Expected one of" "nil" edebug-spec-p "t" "0" (&rest ede
  apply(edebug-syntax-error ("Expected one of" "nil" edebug-spec-p "t" "0" (&r
  edebug-no-match((((([&rest cl-lambda-arg] [&optional ["&optional" cl-&option
  apply(edebug-no-match (((([&rest cl-lambda-arg] [&optional ["&optional" cl-&
  edebug-match-&or((((([&rest cl-lambda-arg] [&optional ["&optional" cl-&optio
  edebug-match-specs((((([&rest cl-lambda-arg] [&optional ["&optional" cl-&opt
  edebug-match-specs((((([&rest cl-lambda-arg] [&optional ["&optional" cl-&opt
  edebug-match-specs((((([&rest cl-lambda-arg] [&optional ["&optional" cl-&opt
  edebug-match-specs((((([&rest cl-lambda-arg] [&optional ["&optional" cl-&opt
  edebug-match-sublist((((([&rest cl-lambda-arg] [&optional ["&optional" cl-&o
  edebug-match-list((((def-edebug-spec cl-lambda-list (([&rest cl-lambda-arg] 
  edebug-match-one-spec((((def-edebug-spec cl-lambda-list (([&rest cl-lambda-a
  edebug-match-specs((((def-edebug-spec cl-lambda-list (([&rest cl-lambda-arg]
  edebug-match((((def-edebug-spec cl-lambda-list (([&rest cl-lambda-arg] [&opt
  edebug-make-form-wrapper((((def-edebug-spec cl-lambda-list (([&rest cl-lambd
  edebug-read-and-maybe-wrap-form1()
  edebug-read-and-maybe-wrap-form()

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:
bug#30910; Package emacs. Full text available.
Added tag(s) confirmed. Request was from Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@HIDDEN> to control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. Full text available.

Message received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org:


Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Mar 2018 19:58:08 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 22 15:58:08 2018
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48159 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1ez6Lg-0004JR-L9
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:08 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34004)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <gazally@HIDDEN>) id 1ez6Lf-0004JG-6N
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <gazally@HIDDEN>) id 1ez6LZ-0001T4-CB
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:02 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
 T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:51717)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <gazally@HIDDEN>) id 1ez6LZ-0001Sr-9U
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:01 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53186)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <gazally@HIDDEN>) id 1ez6LY-00056Y-15
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:00 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <gazally@HIDDEN>) id 1ez6LU-0001QK-Jw
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:58:00 -0400
Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:39140)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <gazally@HIDDEN>) id 1ez6LU-0001OA-9b
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:57:56 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=runbox.com; 
 s=rbselector1;
 h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From; 
 bh=+IteqA0XuiOWS8/1HjOBHyO4CCLTMdx53fBTNLnlezc=; b=Nm+vDUu0w4Xo0P06UjPwTJNSR
 3sFpHNmPFl0SNTVuuny3u/B372VcT+CwWoGht6SOU/TwSd5zdkyC8vsuO+Mg0FM0P+RpAEcinoZfq
 kmBaZaVD2PYjNUoLPr2JgC7rBg1+s+PfF5xuwa7r/4MtSpM0vQq70x4OvE1DGpRX50gROdzN7X5E9
 ioev+hK+8bZ+EFYpckEtRYfnCXW+svT+RKracXCVe7JgyQOfP4UTZ9C4u8YxpJEs3leLCt7iz3xtd
 hlHXxY4k3KO40Poyr/ea2aEVl6TS53/b7b0Ng6RydeNsHwYmcArV3Vw+xIA1SqT5if6JeihL9rCEP
 usIGKdZzA==;
Received: from [10.9.9.211] (helo=mailfront11.runbox.com)
 by mailtransmit02.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
 (envelope-from <gazally@HIDDEN>) id 1ez6LS-0001ol-Gt
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:57:54 +0100
Received: from c-24-22-244-161.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([24.22.244.161]
 helo=chinook) by mailfront11.runbox.com with esmtpsa (uid:179284 )
 (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) id 1ez6Kx-0005p9-4B
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:57:23 +0100
From: Gemini Lasswell <gazally@HIDDEN>
To: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Subject: 26.0.91; Incorrect Edebug spec for def-edebug-spec
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:57:21 -0700
Message-ID: <87h8p76fz2.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
 [fuzzy]
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11
X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----)

def-edebug-spec has an Edebug spec, which fails to match the valid
Edebug specs in lisp/emacs-lisp/cl-macs.el.

To reproduce, load cl-macs.el and:

M-x edebug-all-defs RET
M-x eval-buffer RET

Result: edebug-syntax-error: Invalid read syntax: "Expected one of",
"nil", edebug-spec-p, "t", "0", (&rest edebug-spec)

A simpler edebug spec than cl-lambda-list which also causes the error
is:

(def-edebug-spec buggy ((symbolp symbolp symbolp symbolp . [&or symbolp nil])))

Fewer than four symbolp's will not produce an error.
Acknowledgement sent to Gemini Lasswell <gazally@HIDDEN>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN. Full text available.
Report forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:
bug#30910; Package emacs. Full text available.
Please note: This is a static page, with minimal formatting, updated once a day.
Click here to see this page with the latest information and nicer formatting.
Last modified: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:00:02 UTC

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