From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Antipov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reachable killed buffers Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:00:37 +0400 Message-ID: <50516875.5060607@yandex.ru> References: <504848D0.4020908@yandex.ru> <5048D826.3040103@yandex.ru> <5049C400.8070400@gmx.at> <504DB6DD.9030002@yandex.ru> <504E042E.5040100@yandex.ru> <504ECB49.4050509@yandex.ru> <50504349.7090603@gmx.at> <50509262.1070601@cs.ucla.edu> <50509533.9000502@yandex.ru> <50509698.5060108@cs.ucla.edu> <505098FB.1020801@gmx.at> <5050B151.2020304@yandex.ru> <5050CC93.3010506@cs.ucla.edu> <5051645B.9070308@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1347512450 26569 80.91.229.3 (13 Sep 2012 05:00:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 05:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: martin rudalics , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 13 07:00:50 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TC1Xk-0002ga-Ns for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:00:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34768 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TC1Xh-0004g0-3S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:00:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47857) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TC1Xd-0004fk-Bx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:00:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TC1Xb-0004fU-Vq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:00:41 -0400 Original-Received: from forward12.mail.yandex.net ([95.108.130.94]:48273) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TC1Xb-0004fA-Ja for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:00:39 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp13.mail.yandex.net (smtp13.mail.yandex.net [95.108.130.68]) by forward12.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id CB58AC21E95; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:00:37 +0400 (MSK) Original-Received: from smtp13.mail.yandex.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp13.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 85B52E40501; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:00:37 +0400 (MSK) Original-Received: from unknown (unknown [37.139.80.10]) by smtp13.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTP id 0bW4VSPc-0bW44uBg; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:00:37 +0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1347512437; bh=/r0DTXotwCMnyzZhgmh0K2dp1yDa9w6oVHf2ojEs+qc=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=doBc1Bw5PMO+f/mJNHVq1G8wDqCHBSa0lvRFoQ/1wBHvMawPeCCv+ucsLMXwZ9cFS A+KW2ZJMDavCnJKfuM5G2LmUQaB5ROrgcSEfLrIsbMNQqeNsmuoVDguPutbX4zBixu E2yLNP+d5SmIol38m5ubuFsTdG55h/TWdcZkYuDA= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 In-Reply-To: <5051645B.9070308@cs.ucla.edu> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 95.108.130.94 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:153266 Archived-At: On 09/13/2012 08:43 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 09/12/2012 08:29 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> Arguably, if (part of) that list is shared with some other data >> structure, then we indeed shouldn't remove dead buffers from it. > > But the patch doesn't implement that either, right? > If part of the list is shared, but the GC doesn't discover > this until after that code runs, it'll remove dead > buffers from that part. From the user's point of > view, whether dead buffers are removed would depend > on the phase of the moon. This is the common problem, similar to what the user may call setcdr for some list and then found that another list is also changed. I don't see a problem here - the user should realize that destructive list modifications may cause some strange effects. Dmitry