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#39962: 27.0.90; Crash in Emacs 27.0.90 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:23:29 +0200 Message-ID: <83blp1siku.fsf@gnu.org> References: <24162.58107.725366.668639@cochabamba.vanoostrum.org> <329e58b1-6255-311e-bdd8-b6f5b3d5208f@cs.ucla.edu> <22225b66-44f6-d132-3036-92181d53c28d@cs.ucla.edu> <89A83582-358F-43DC-B96E-04EE9D655D5F@vanoostrum.org> <63b88e2d-9888-f3ce-a4b0-fcf344e803e5@cs.ucla.edu> <83d09lbgk5.fsf@gnu.org> <837dzqaieq.fsf@gnu.org> <834kuuadod.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="42245"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 39962@debbugs.gnu.org, pieter-l@vanoostrum.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 12 16:25:42 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 1jCPiP-000ArR-Ol for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:25:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43346 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jCPiO-0005Vl-Nw for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:25:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45698) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jCPgp-0003VQ-LL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:24:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jCPgo-0008V7-EU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:24:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51713) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jCPgo-0008Uz-At for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:24:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jCPgo-00068q-7b for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:24:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:24:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 39962 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 39962-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B39962.158402661223569 (code B ref 39962); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:24:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 39962) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Mar 2020 15:23:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57686 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jCPgJ-000685-Q3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:23:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58636) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jCPgH-00067s-LF for 39962@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:23:30 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59342) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jCPgB-0007UI-B8; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:23:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3491 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jCPgA-0007HN-PF; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:23:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Pip Cet on Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:32:16 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 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:177225 Archived-At: > From: Pip Cet > Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:32:16 +0000 > Cc: pieter-l@vanoostrum.org, 39962@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:34 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > Did you audit all the users of this function, both direct and > > > > indirect? Some of them are outside of GC. > > > > > > Thanks for the comment; I just re-checked, and they look fine to me. > > > > ??? Fine in what way? > > It doesn't affect visible behavior of any callers, except in the case > where the previous behavior was buggy. I guess we have different notions of "visible" and "buggy". > What confused me is that live_buffer and live_buffer_p both exist and > do wildly different things. They do very similar things, AFAICT. > I'm most certainly not changing the semantics of live_buffer, if > that's what you're worried about. I am changing the semantics of > live_buffer_p, which is an internal function, and my initial patch > also changed the return value of valid_lisp_object_p, to another value > that would be treated equivalently. If there are objections to that, > we can easily distinguish the two cases. I actually don't understand why we need to make such a change. > And I think "so we don't collect reachable objects" is a fairly good > reason, generally. I didn't say it wasn't good, I said it didn't justify the proposed solution. How about if you tell more about the root cause of the crash you are trying to solve, and why disregarding the fact that a buffer is killed is the way to solve it? > > The problem you are trying to solve is rare > > I think it would become much less rare with lexical binding in effect, > at least when the code's byte-compiled. That remains to be seen. > > since this code was with us since 20 years ago without > > anyone bumping into it, > > That we know of. They might have just accrued it to random Emacs crashes. Then again, they might not. We don't really have any evidence to that effect, all we know is that the code survived virtually intact since the day it was written.