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: [RFC] temporary Lisp_Strings Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:24:02 +0400 Message-ID: <5405E112.90005@yandex.ru> References: <5405BE5D.1090003@yandex.ru> <5405D61E.8090604@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 1409671476 20449 80.91.229.3 (2 Sep 2014 15:24:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:24:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs development discussions To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 02 17:24:27 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 1XOpwV-0004bs-F1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 17:24:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38781 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XOpwV-0003vk-1h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:24:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59253) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XOpwM-0003uF-79 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:24:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XOpwF-0007uH-6T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:24:14 -0400 Original-Received: from forward4h.cmail.yandex.net ([87.250.230.19]:40161) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XOpwE-0007tz-Oi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:24:07 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp1o.mail.yandex.net (smtp1o.mail.yandex.net [37.140.190.26]) by forward4h.cmail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id C4CE714A3; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 19:24:03 +0400 (MSK) Original-Received: from smtp1o.mail.yandex.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1o.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 7D9A3DE2B57; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 19:24:03 +0400 (MSK) Original-Received: from unknown (unknown [37.139.80.10]) by smtp1o.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id cnrxmLY6DA-O2BqwlwX; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 19:24:02 +0400 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client certificate not present) X-Yandex-Uniq: b2496da6-da1a-4276-93ca-965f322c759f DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1409671442; bh=Tkc/S51PghhecGJj12W0xQDeQ+uLBPP3VEi9erRnwqc=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=M8s+lvKi6CNyfctHC39hvw4zKvQV+ytuAr56QfvC5plgGxyAXbjRPFkzvyNLs1oPj 6YIbKaC+IyEiYBp9ig+e+xpaD0QotB0xyDbGkJ4wpyj3Q5dXxhnZUUkcqTWOEJ0rz/ QBUz49pB5VmbnpwV7BHGCkFGgPI2mBU1J8j/Jq2Q= Authentication-Results: smtp1o.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 In-Reply-To: <5405D61E.8090604@cs.ucla.edu> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 87.250.230.19 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:173956 Archived-At: On 09/02/2014 06:37 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > What would the GC do when it sees such a string? In theory, such a strings are out of GC's scope: - If GC_MARK_STACK == GC_MAKE_GCPROS_NOOPS, such a string is never recorded in rb-tree and so GC should not recognize it as a collectable object; - If GC_MARK_STACK == GC_USE_GCPROS_AS_BEFORE: - If you GCPRO such a string, this is fatal error; - Otherwise GC just silently ignores it. > Wouldn't this make the GC a bit less robust, as it couldn't diagnose > bogus strings any more when GC_CHECK_MARKED_OBJECTS is defined? No ideas yet, this should be investigated. Dmitry