From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#47067: 28.0.50; [feature/native-comp] Crash while scrolling through dispnew.c Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 18:53:48 +0200 Message-ID: <83czw3hu5f.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83sg52lykn.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtv8lrmf.fsf@gnu.org> <83czw4lelg.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtv8jgn2.fsf@gnu.org> <834khfjv7q.fsf@gnu.org> <83tupfia1m.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtv7hy5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83k0qbhvnh.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38941"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: akrl@sdf.org, 47067@debbugs.gnu.org To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 13 17:54:43 2021 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 1lL7XH-000A1Y-1n for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 17:54:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49680 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lL7XG-0004zK-48 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:54:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47826) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lL7Wc-0004z0-Br for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:54:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:49033) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lL7Wc-0000DT-2G for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:54:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lL7Wc-0002Ey-0x for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:54:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 16:54:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47067 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 47067-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B47067.16156544318595 (code B ref 47067); Sat, 13 Mar 2021 16:54:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 47067) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Mar 2021 16:53:51 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60579 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lL7WQ-0002EZ-NV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:53:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58184) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lL7WP-0002EL-6h for 47067@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:53:49 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:37013) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lL7WJ-0008Sz-PA; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:53:43 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4813 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lL7WI-0002dU-R9; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:53:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Pip Cet on Sat, 13 Mar 2021 16:32:50 +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:202274 Archived-At: > From: Pip Cet > Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 16:32:50 +0000 > Cc: Andrea Corallo , 47067@debbugs.gnu.org > > > > > > So EDI is bunk at this point. Can you go back a bit further to where > > > > > it's initialized? > > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't understand: I gave you the disassembly of 512 bytes > > > > before, isn't that enough to see where EDI is assigned the value? Or > > > > what do you mean by "go back"? > > > > > > It's not enough, no. we're looking for an insn of the form mov XXX, > > > %edi or lea XXX, %edi, or anything like that. > > > > I went back 4KB, and the only two instructions that write into EDI are > > It's a long function, that might not have been enough. But since I found those two, everything before that is irrelevant, right? > > > I'm suspicious because EDI is a register variable that is clobbered > > > somehow right after a setjmp returned. Which setjmp implementation are > > > you using? > > > > Not sure how to answer that. AFAIK, it's a setjmp from the MS runtime. > > So not some mingw wrapper for it? No, not that I could see. > I just checked the only "mingw"-like sources I could find, and they > don't appear to use the frame pointer argument properly... Why is this suddenly relevant when native compilation is involved? > > > Is it possible that you're on Windows, but unlike other Windows > > > setjmps, it's unsafe to call your setjmp through a function pointer? > > > > How do I tell? > > Well, you could just apply this untested patch, fix any obvious > compile errors I might not have spotted, and try to reproduce it. I'm > not currently on a Windows (or x86) machine, so it's a bit hard for me > to test... I'd like this investigation to be less of a blind search, sorry. can you tell what to check or look at to see if this is relevant? And how is setjmp related to the code which causes segfault? I see no call to setjmp in the disassembly. > > Note how arguments to Funcall's are the same, whereas arguments to > > funcall_lambda's aren't. Even the garbage in the 2 arguments to > > wrong_type_argument are identical. > > Which non-stack addresses are invariant in that backtrace? Not sure how stack-based vs non-stack based is important here.