From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:46:10 +0000 Message-ID: <0f053182b01ca92048da@heytings.org> References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> <14648C4B-2346-4895-8534-CA4CD9637FD2@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2864"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org To: Mattias =?UTF-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 14 21:47:29 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1pS2D2-0000Vq-5I for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:47:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Cn-0002fJ-Os; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:47:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Cd-0002ea-Tk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:47:10 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Cc-0003VX-FY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:47:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Cc-0003IU-Bx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:47:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Gregory Heytings Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:47:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 61504 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 61504-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B61504.167640757712621 (code B ref 61504); Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:47:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 20:46:17 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57134 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Bp-0003HR-4d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:46:17 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:57016) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Bn-0003HH-HJ for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:46:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1676407570; bh=gK6H+JIk3qmjrMaDj2Jup9ngK1wcQas8bbuI/e2u/sc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=lmn4R9xNPerjuB64FoyAW76+I5ZEAyeTPOYSvYBtIW27DisNylvhVIt4+m8x1FngF wsAT2QucFTrNK5dVfNa08FR5/aWIx3GH2f/VVSxyj6dEztzP9sPQ9CmDpiSdRj9nyp bGyn+SukHCZ7VGOolmoaRIDvUFY/6P9h60Y3dD/3L9b/OvKDglOD1Y3PyvEvHbncno cxzxPkMjo29tr9DSQ6QUq2bcUgpBnfqOjkkvktuN8852XVVWmnj+nWoayzwEmrsFD3 744xxS8D8q2PFfBqfOS2a6+JRMtEzz+RtG5FvL77XwD9SmbMZ2gtK7GTo2NSY5bEAh Lmb7k7vTTjDAA== In-Reply-To: <14648C4B-2346-4895-8534-CA4CD9637FD2@acm.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:255632 Archived-At: >>> By the way, doesn't the patch switch the restoration order of >>> narrowing and restriction, respectively? Maybe it doesn't matter? >> >> Hmmm, that's a good question! The evaluation order of parameters is >> unspecified in C, so actually the order could be switched or not, >> depending on what the compiler chooses to do. > > Yes, the saving order is undefined but the restoring order seems > well-defined. It currently restores narrowing locks first, then the > restriction, but your patch flips the order. > Indeed, I misunderstood what you said above, now I got it! > > Please at least make the saving order well-defined, preferably in the > reverse order of restoration for symmetry. > I did that. Thanks again for your review/feedback.