From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GC and stack marking Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 05:43:46 +0300 Message-ID: <83r43mmt25.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83sio2nb4s.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1400726639 8490 80.91.229.3 (22 May 2014 02:43:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 02:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Barry OReilly Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 22 04:43:52 2014 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 1WnIz0-0002Fx-Vc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 04:43:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34405 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WnIz0-0004Mx-Kk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 May 2014 22:43:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34215) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WnIyr-0004MZ-Sl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2014 22:43:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WnIym-0007gq-0Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2014 22:43:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout25.012.net.il ([80.179.55.181]:53924) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WnIyl-0007gO-Ot for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2014 22:43:35 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout25.012.net.il by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N5Y00100DXCOA00@mtaout25.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 05:40:28 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N5Y0058HFFGIQ30@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Thu, 22 May 2014 05:40:28 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.181 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:172011 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 16:49:22 -0400 > From: Barry OReilly > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Even if we're only talking about the stack variables in the frames that are > active during your particular problematic case (and perhaps in the idle > Emacs GC case)? I thought you were asking about having the compiler generate the code to do that, which would then happen everywhere. If you propose doing that selectively, I don't know how this would be possible, since on the C level you don't have a way of telling how much stack is allocated in a given function. > Have you already ruled out whether stack_top_variable contributes one of > the bytes in your false positive lookup in the mem_node tree? Yes. I looked at all the local variables in that stack frame, and their addresses on the stack are different from the one that triggers the problem.