On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 16:31 (+0100), Arash Esbati wrote: > Hi Keita,
> Ikumi Keita <[email protected]> writes: >> Thank you for your report. Though I haven't understand the culprit yet, >> I noticed a difference between `TeX-LaTeX-sentinel' and >> `TeX-ConTeXt-sentinel'. Could you try the following patch if you know >> how to use it? >> diff --git a/context.el b/context.el >> index 25cbeb34..d248859f 100644 >> --- a/context.el >> +++ b/context.el >> @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ for a label to be inserted after the sectioning command." >> (message (concat name ": problems after " >> (TeX-current-pages))) >> (setq TeX-command-next TeX-command-default))))) >> - (unless TeX-error-list >> + (unless (TeX-error-report-has-errors-p) >> (run-hook-with-args 'TeX-after-compilation-finished-functions >> (with-current-buffer TeX-command-buffer >> (expand-file-name > Thanks for looking at this issue. I applied your suggestion and tried > it, but no avail. Maybe Jim has different results. Unfortunately, not. > I only had a brief look, and I think we have to touch > `TeX-TeX-sentinel-check' again. First, I think we should do this to > context.el: > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > diff --git a/context.el b/context.el > index 25cbeb34..001d765f 100644 > --- a/context.el > +++ b/context.el > @@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ for a label to be inserted after the sectioning command." > ;; Mark IV > ((with-current-buffer TeX-command-buffer > (string= ConTeXt-Mark-version "IV")) > - (cond ((TeX-TeX-sentinel-check process name)) > + (cond ((not (TeX-TeX-sentinel-check process name))) > ((re-search-forward "fatal error: " nil t) > (message (concat name ": problems after " > (TeX-current-pages))) > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Did that change do anything for you? In my case, it didn't even give me the "... errors ... Use C-c ` to display" message. Seeing "Mark IV" in that code did give me one concern... I suspect most (if not virtually all) ConTeXt users at now using LMTX. I wonder if any differences between MkIV and LMTX are significant for AUCTeX. > ,----[ C-h f TeX-TeX-sentinel-check RET ] >> TeX-TeX-sentinel-check is a native-comp-function in ‘tex.el’. >> (TeX-TeX-sentinel-check PROCESS NAME) >> Cleanup TeX output buffer after running TeX. >> Return nil only if no errors were found. > `---- > In the case above, the first cond-clause wins because > `TeX-TeX-sentinel-check' returns non-nil (it finds an error), so the > search for "fatal error" never happens. FWIW, I don't follow you there. Isn't there a search for "fatal error" exactly when TeX-TeX-sentinel-check returns non-nil? Further, ConTeXt (apparently) never outputs "fatal error", so searching for that doesn't seem fruitful. > Next, ConTeXt emits a "fancy" error message. Consider this file: > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > \starttext > \xyzzy > \stoptext > %%% Local Variables: > %%% mode: ConTeXt > %%% TeX-master: t > %%% ConTeXt-Mark-version: "IV" > %%% End: > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > Running context on it says: > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > ! Undefined control sequence > tex error > tex error on line 2 in file ./context-test.tex: > <line 3.2> > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > Now take this plain-TeX file: > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > % \starttext > \xyzzy > % \stoptext > %%% Local Variables: > %%% mode: plain-TeX > %%% TeX-master: t > %%% End: > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > Running tex on it gives: > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > (./context-test.tex > ./context-test.tex:4: Undefined control sequence. > l.4 \xyzzy > ) > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > which AUCTeX parses correctly. Again, I only had a very brief look, so > apologies if the above is off. Cheers. Jim _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
