From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#41321: 27.0.91; Emacs aborts due to invalid pseudovector objects Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 17:53:17 +0300 Message-ID: <838shgvzfm.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83zha8cgpi.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1vibmyj.fsf@gnu.org> <83imgublku.fsf@gnu.org> <831rncjuwf.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7w5xvfa.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2phwb9x.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1v9w9vi.fsf@gnu.org> <83mu5xw50d.fsf@gnu.org> <83k110wxte.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="70538"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 41321@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Pip Cet , eggert@cs.ucla.edu Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 25 16:54:08 2020 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 1jdEUS-000IFO-Fx for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 16:54:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32880 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdEUR-0002fa-Ha for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:54:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52248) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdEUM-0002fT-6R for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:54:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58793) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdEUL-0003xw-U5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:54:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jdEUL-0004N5-Sz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:54:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 14:54:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41321 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 41321-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B41321.159041839416748 (code B ref 41321); Mon, 25 May 2020 14:54:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 41321) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 May 2020 14:53:14 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42106 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jdETa-0004M3-8q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:53:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44654) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jdETY-0004Lq-Ip for 41321@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:53:13 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:50445) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdETS-0003qm-Kx; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:53:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3178 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jdETR-0002sI-Sq; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:53:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Pip Cet on Mon, 25 May 2020 11:28:46 +0000) 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:180975 Archived-At: > From: Pip Cet > Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 11:28:46 +0000 > Cc: 41321@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier > > And I just noticed strings aren't aligned to LISP_ALIGNMENT on > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > I think we're going to have to weaken the maybe_lisp_pointer check to > check only for GC_ALIGNMENT. I tend to agree. Paul, why did we move to max_align_t as the alignment requirement? AFAIU, GCC enlarged that recently to allow for _Float128 type (at least on 32-bit hosts), but do we really need that? Also, what does this mean for stack-based Lisp objects? AFAIU, we previously required 8-byte alignment on 32-bit hosts (and on MS-Windows we jump through some hoops to guarantee that in callbacks of Windows APIs and in thread functions that manipulate Lisp objects). Does the use of max_align_t means that now stack-based Lisp objects will need to have 16-byte alignment on 32-bit Windows?