From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should (buffer-list) ever return killed buffers? Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 23:32:59 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87wnrpujo0.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <87bl91uhn0.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17039"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Sergey Organov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 24 05:33:44 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1ll1Lc-0004E1-Cs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 May 2021 05:33:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34288 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ll1La-0003Mj-No for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 May 2021 23:33:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51726) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ll1L5-0002iT-CT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 May 2021 23:33:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:15376) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ll1L3-0002GJ-QL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 May 2021 23:33:11 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 273334411DE; Sun, 23 May 2021 23:33:09 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 71C704411D1; Sun, 23 May 2021 23:33:01 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1621827181; bh=sn+mFJdSwaULKiZqzqXB/xwrFvMdU6cFNrHZmQjOLnE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=SMvVd85QVuZV3o4FwSYBtD5C6sTWv98W5V+yTkr5ByuylUkWjDril3QkjHwNW2Q1v WyXr5lYmuOb4x9REqhi6ru/V42+lGOtlkL5P9Tsbu63VvOrd6gE03XX+u1NzaHdiR2 6vZBdHCfaJAaLG7FiE9KUmaX7n6YHp9l8KWLwvoI9CY+AWTCH9Fn4dEXn1NXNyNQSN 3iyZL9W0/mFHNHLyzUYNFkfFNMHTivIKAwYtF3d/P925nV0JPDIvEovXgFdC7hTBQi fisJdCd+rTdHo5zaJrNjIdfAjEXsoz5LtO0+0Y6LQRPHNPYsoXnEtJXbVS7ubYc6SB GfpfOx907ssjg== Original-Received: from alfajor (69-196-163-239.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.163.239]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 424401209A9; Sun, 23 May 2021 23:33:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87bl91uhn0.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> (Sergey Organov's message of "Mon, 24 May 2021 02:58:43 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:269732 Archived-At: >> - while processing that list, some of its buffers die. >> So I think the bug is in `desktop-clear` which should skip buffers that >> have died between the call to `buffer-list` and the moment we get to >> process them. > > Yep, looks like this. The only question then is why didn't it ever fail > for me before, for about 10 years, and started to fail only recently, > despite "desktop.el" is like that for ages, as far as I can see. And how > running from a timer could be involved? It all depends on what's going on the loop, the order of buffers in the list, etc.... it's not hard to imagine a slight innocent change somewhere introducing this corner case where it didn't show up earlier. Stefan