bug#74966: 31.0.50; Crash report (using igc on macOS)

[Pip Cet via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 10:09:25 +0000
>> From: Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, spd@toadstyle.org, acorallo@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 74966@debbugs.gnu.org
>>
>> >> Also, Stefan said something about using a Lisp_Object for the value?
>> >
>> > Haven't seen or registered that, so I better leave that to Stefan to
>> > explain.
>>
>> I suggested doing so, I'm not aware of either Stefan suggesting it (as
>> both of them feature prominently in the git blame for doc.c, I'm not
>> sure which Stefan was meant).
>
> See https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=74966#107

Thanks! Since that message doesn't mention Lisp_Objects at all, it
didn't register here as a suggestion to use Lisp_Object instead of
EMACS_INT for doc, so I made/repeated that suggestion in message 113:

> I meant this patch, which splits "doc" into "doc_index" and
> "doc_offset".  It'd probably be better to use a Lisp_Object here, which
> can be either a fixnum (index into etc/DOC) or a string (the doc string
> specified in some other manner).  And maybe we can drop the docfile
> index thing entirely at some point soon?

I thought that was what you were referring to.  Rereading message 107,
it's not quite clear to me whether Stefan Monnier was indeed suggesting
to change "doc" to be a Lisp_Object or assuming it already was or merely
referring to its (integer) value as a fixnum.

Whatever the case, I assume that's the suggestion we're most likely to
go with?

Pip