XEmacs 21.4.10 "Military Intelligence".

[chise/xemacs-chise.git.1] / src / font-lock.c

diff --git a/src/font-lock.c b/src/font-lock.c
index ea40a1b..1cfd739 100644 (file)
--- a/src/font-lock.c
+++ b/src/font-lock.c
@@ -391,28 +391,30 @@ setup_context_cache (struct buffer *buf, Bufpos pt)
   }
 }
 
+/* GCC 2.95.4 seems to need the casts */
 #define SYNTAX_START_STYLE(c1, c2)                                     \
-  (SYNTAX_CODES_MATCH_START_P (c1, c2, SYNTAX_COMMENT_STYLE_A) ?       \
+  ((enum comment_style)                                                 \
+   (SYNTAX_CODES_MATCH_START_P (c1, c2, SYNTAX_COMMENT_STYLE_A) ?      \
    comment_style_a :                                                   \
    SYNTAX_CODES_MATCH_START_P (c1, c2, SYNTAX_COMMENT_STYLE_B) ?       \
    comment_style_b :                                                   \
-   comment_style_none)
+   comment_style_none))
 
 #define SYNTAX_END_STYLE(c1, c2)                               \
-  (SYNTAX_CODES_MATCH_END_P (c1, c2, SYNTAX_COMMENT_STYLE_A) ? \
+  ((enum comment_style)                                         \
+   (SYNTAX_CODES_MATCH_END_P (c1, c2, SYNTAX_COMMENT_STYLE_A) ?        \
    comment_style_a :                                           \
    SYNTAX_CODES_MATCH_END_P (c1, c2, SYNTAX_COMMENT_STYLE_B) ? \
    comment_style_b :                                           \
-   comment_style_none)
+   comment_style_none))
 
-/* GCC 2.95.4 seems to need the cast */
-#define SINGLE_SYNTAX_STYLE(c)                                         \
-  ((enum comment_style)                                                 \
-      (SYNTAX_CODE_MATCHES_1CHAR_P (c, SYNTAX_COMMENT_STYLE_A) ?       \
-       comment_style_a :                                               \
-       SYNTAX_CODE_MATCHES_1CHAR_P (c, SYNTAX_COMMENT_STYLE_B) ?       \
-       comment_style_b :                                               \
-       comment_style_none))
+#define SINGLE_SYNTAX_STYLE(c)                                 \
+  ((enum comment_style)                                         \
+   (SYNTAX_CODE_MATCHES_1CHAR_P (c, SYNTAX_COMMENT_STYLE_A) ?  \
+   comment_style_a :                                           \
+   SYNTAX_CODE_MATCHES_1CHAR_P (c, SYNTAX_COMMENT_STYLE_B) ?   \
+   comment_style_b :                                           \
+   comment_style_none))
 
 /* Set up context_cache for position PT in BUF. */
 
@@ -430,6 +432,7 @@ find_context (struct buffer *buf, Bufpos pt)
   setup_context_cache (buf, pt);
   pt = context_cache.cur_point;
 
+  SCS_STATISTICS_SET_FUNCTION (scs_find_context);
   SETUP_SYNTAX_CACHE (pt - 1, 1);
   if (pt > BUF_BEGV (buf))
     {
@@ -632,13 +635,18 @@ find_context (struct buffer *buf, Bufpos pt)
       else if ((SYNTAX_CODE_COMMENT_BITS (syncode) &
                SYNTAX_FIRST_CHAR_END) &&
               context_cache.context == context_block_comment &&
+#if 0
+              /* #### pre-Matt code had: */
+              (context_cache.style ==
+               SYNTAX_END_STYLE (c, BUF_FETCH_CHAR (buf, pt+1))) &&
+              /* why do these differ here?! */
+#endif
               context_cache.style == SINGLE_SYNTAX_STYLE (syncode) &&
               (context_cache.ccontext == ccontext_start2 ||
                context_cache.ccontext == ccontext_end1))
-       /* #### is it right to check for end1 here?? 
-          yes, because this might be a repetition of the first char
-          of a comment-end sequence. ie, '/xxx foo xxx/' or
-          '/xxx foo x/', where 'x' = '*' -- mct */
+       /* check end1, to detect a repetition of the first char of a
+          comment-end sequence. ie, '/xxx foo xxx/' or '/xxx foo x/',
+          where 'x' = '*' -- mct */
        {
          if (context_cache.style == comment_style_none) abort ();
          context_cache.ccontext = ccontext_end1;