> > Perhaps what happens is that there is readahead, but it's not sufficient
> > to parse more. Then we busy-loop here. What we could do is get the
> > length of the typeahed (or better: a hash) and if it's the same as last
> > time, ignore it.
>
> Yes, that sounds like a plausible explanation and a good idea. My C is
> unfortunately way too rusty to submit a patch, but I'd be more than happy
> to try out any patches if you'd like confirmation before pushing a change.
>
> > It says waiting for 30 sec, but there appears to be a gap of 115 sec.
>
> The job itself is initiated via job_start() with a timeout of 30000, but
> that timeout never occurs when vim hangs like this. I killed it manually
> after 115 sec.
Yeah, if it loops here it doesn't get to the part where it uses the
timeout.
I can guess what happens, I'll make a patch based on that. But I can't
be 100% sure it will solve the problem. Please check after the relevant
patch. I don't know how to write a test for this too.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
60. As your car crashes through the guardrail on a mountain road, your first
instinct is to search for the "back" button.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// \\\
\\\ sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ ///
\\\ 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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/20220426174720.CD34F1C04EA%40moolenaar.net.
