From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:47:28 +0000 Message-ID: <0f053182b0852c07b095@heytings.org> References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6582"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, Mattias =?UTF-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= , Eli Zaretskii , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 14 21:48:11 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Dj-0001XC-Q8 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:48:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Dg-00036d-7l; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:48:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Da-00033v-MO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:48:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Da-0004WY-1v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:48:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2DZ-0003MZ-NO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:48:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Gregory Heytings Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:48:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 61504 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 61504-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B61504.167640765112744 (code B ref 61504); Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:48:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 20:47:31 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57138 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2D5-0003JS-8f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:47:31 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:57030) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2D3-0003JJ-OB for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:47:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1676407649; bh=ZUEMaqndphBrbJItF6dmwO67Q1WcIho9ttTf9i0AfJA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=XOtU9UokOoiY/xy8uoSrSrqWxBobc9EwZ3KyRLNHf9lgojgrJzTlnYJLxWxD4TLJN IvN+cKNeZ9fJF31BaLWc8M93rayU9uiWQ3E6LbctYyor3HocPGv97Wyl93rhb262s7 SipfgfxeAqXnPiBvt7XeKJQ7A9xLz0+9k2fDjD523BdCcg+oMyMmpvPm+fs92LaVow tfgzQDbaBATY1+fOcgb+3zPg5WDz6KmWm8rrPztJ0ozLlnnyT0Nz6GtDW3T2ff5oqm LanRgeAKmoyzvrpQJPme1DeAgytL/tHTkEgk2gIgeSkrJ2ddX8/tuazXRPlv4nVuEP mS/SbyY9NJWMA== In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:255633 Archived-At: >>> By the way, doesn't the patch switch the restoration order of >>> narrowing and restriction, respectively? Maybe it doesn't matter? >> >> Hmmm, that's a good question! The evaluation order of parameters is >> unspecified in C, > > The problem is not in the evaluation order of params in > `save_restriction_save` (this order doesn't matter because the code is > pure), it's in `save_restriction_restore`. > Indeed, I initially misunderstood what Mattias said, but after reading it again I got it. This is now fixed. Thanks!