From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: libnettle/libhogweed WIP Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:55:32 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87efwrug6z.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <83a89gq3us.fsf@gnu.org> <87bmtjiv0w.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <83o9xjn06c.fsf@gnu.org> <87shmeb5ln.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <83y3w5z1ez.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgr6yakj.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wpamww9k.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8337daggnj.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1cdwxt6.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83tw5pg1q3.fsf@gnu.org> <87zifhulc2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83h91og80k.fsf@gnu.org> <87pogbuhoe.fsf@lifelogs.com> <834lxndmd9.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1492448157 13394 195.159.176.226 (17 Apr 2017 16:55:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:55:57 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 17 18:55:53 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d09wM-0003Iw-Ov for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:55:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37853 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d09wR-00030m-6w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:55:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59904) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d09wK-00030M-O7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:55:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d09wG-0001xc-M4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:55:48 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=55530 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d09wG-0001wZ-7E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:55:44 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d09w5-0002x6-Ji for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:55:33 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 52 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never Cancel-Lock: sha1:7t71tfBqU05QLoXKTKUMUMylQBE= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:214079 Archived-At: On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:34:10 +0300 Eli Zaretskii wrote: EZ> Because you already require unibyte text as input. Unibyte text EZ> doesn't need encoding, it's either ASCII or was already encoded before EZ> calling these functions. ... EZ> If you want to allow multibyte input that needs to be encoded as part EZ> of these functions, then yes. I see the confusion. Yes, I want to allow multibyte input. Users shouldn't have to jump through hoops to use these functions. SM> I think we don't have the function that Ted wants. Basically, we'd SM> need to provide a `resize_string_data` function >> >> That seems pretty complicated. I'll leave the patch as is, doing an >> extra copy, and add a TODO referencing this potential function. EZ> Why not use my suggestion, producing a Lisp string out of C string EZ> just before returning? I don't see the difference between allocating a C string + make_unibyte_string(), and doing Lisp_Object storage = make_uninit_string (storage_length); ... return make_unibyte_string (SSDATA (storage), storage_length); because either way the data has to be copied, and the latter needs less care with freeing the memory. It's really not a big deal to switch to your suggestion, I just don't know why it matters? >> Somewhat related--is there a sure way to wipe Lisp strings in C? I've done >> >> memset(SSDATA (storage), 0, storage_length); EZ> I think you want clear-string, a.k.a. Fclear_string (although it does EZ> almost exactly what you did). Perfect, thanks. >> Does the core allow C functions to say "GC this Lisp object right >> away and make sure it's wiped" or some subset of that? EZ> No. And you are aware that GC doesn't wipe memory, only reshuffles it EZ> and marks it free, yes? So clearing the contents is required anyway, EZ> and after that, why do you care when it will be GC'ed? Understood, I'll use clear-string and worry less :) Thank you again. Ted