bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#61514: 30.0.50; sadistically long xml line hangs emacs


From: Gregory Heytings
Subject: bug#61514: 30.0.50; sadistically long xml line hangs emacs
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 20:13:38 +0000



We probably still have an O(N²) behavior which can bite with a line like

  <id name="N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_.....">

My patch should significantly improve the constant factor, but with a long enough "N_N_N_N_N..." I suspect it can still end up painful.


I just tried that, with a 4 MB such line, and indeed the result is painful, but nowhere as painful as this bug: opening that file takes "only" about 4 minutes, after which it can be edited normally.


Maybe we should reduce the scope of the search for the fallback case (the case where we add the "[^...]+\\<" prefix) since AFAICT its only purpose is to try and guess a helpful error messages when the XML is ill-formed.


That's an idea, yes. With the following patch even your "n_n_..." example opens almost instantanously:

diff --git a/lisp/nxml/xmltok.el b/lisp/nxml/xmltok.el
index c36d225c7c9..61783ea4dec 100644
--- a/lisp/nxml/xmltok.el
+++ b/lisp/nxml/xmltok.el
@@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ xmltok-scan-attributes
        (atts-needing-normalization nil))
     (while (cond ((or (looking-at (xmltok-attribute regexp))
                      ;; use non-greedy group
-                     (when (looking-at (concat "[^<>\n]+?"
+                     (when (looking-at (concat "[^<>\n]\\{1,1000\\}?\\<"
                                                (xmltok-attribute regexp)))
                        (unless recovering
                          (xmltok-add-error "Malformed attribute"

I don't think we want that for `emacs-29`, but unless there's some objection I'll push this to `master`,

I'd say it fixes an important bug in the regexp engine, but I cannot judge whether it's important enough for emacs-29.

It's a missing optimization that's been with us for many many years, so I don't see any urgency to fix it.


It's not urgent, indeed. But it doesn't look risky either, especially given that you've been using that patch for years. Anyway, I don't have a strong preference.
reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]