Charles Campbell wrote: > Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > Charles Campbell wrote: > > > >> Maybe I was just lucky for years, but it seemed to me that the order of > >> tags files (left to right in the tags option) and order of tags > >> (top-to-bottom in the tags file) was important in resolving multiple > >> tags with the same name. That no longer seems to be the case, which > >> makes it hard to avoid prototypes vs the actual function from being > >> called up as the first tag (and system prototypes, too). > >> > >> So -- was I just lucky, or is a deliberate change, or (hopefully) an > >> inadvertent effect that needs fixing? > > Maybe caused by patch 8.0.0190? It changes the linear search for > > duplicates to using a hash table. You could try using the version just > > before it and see if that makes a change. > > > I'm having problems with applying the patches: > > * First, patch said, starting with the very first two patches, that the > patch appeared to be reversed, etc. > > * Not looking forward to telling patch to reverse 189 patches, I > removed vim80/ and extracted vim-8.0.tar again to start afresh. I then > used patch -R . Patch then complained that some of the patches were not > reversed. > > * Then I decided to repeat the removal of vim80/ and extraction of > vim-8.0 again, but this time using patch -f (which forces the patch no > matter which way it appeared to go). I then got a lot of hunk failures; > vim would not compile. > > I see that there's a vim-8.0.069 so I'm using that for tag testing. vim > v8-69 honors my priority ordering and vim v8-282 does not. > > I then applied patches 70-189 and built vim successfully. (!) So I > repeated tags testing: vim v8-189 honors my priority ordering. vim > v8-190 also honors my priority ordering. (by "honors priority ordering" > I mean that vim tags to the first match of multiple matches) > > By bisection, the patch that introduces the problem is: patch#195.
Thanks for taking the time to figure out which patch caused the problem. I guess that when we check for a NUL we drop the priority information. Are you able to reproduce the problem in a simple way, so that we can write a test for this problem? -- Kiss me twice. I'm schizophrenic. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
