From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 5141234acf: Refactor the webp cache code to allow usage by gif_load, too Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:04:40 +0200 Message-ID: <8735ijbwk7.fsf@gnus.org> References: <164967696186.12152.11548736665906939483@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20220411113602.7A114C0581E@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87bkx73jfz.fsf@yahoo.com> <878rsbbxi0.fsf@gnus.org> <874k2z3hj8.fsf@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7538"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 11 15:06:16 2022 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 1ndtkE-0001js-Vu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:06:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42640 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ndtkD-0006Dd-UK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:06:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37540) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ndtit-0004il-ET for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:04:51 -0400 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([2a01:4f9:2b:f0f::2]:53856) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ndtiq-0003oH-Fs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:04:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=vvItADAYcb6wH4eaBrFihQ0GDVz6nDmQOscaW9J/8YE=; b=SwSKNq3ayF8a3QdJJYbE4yTFny MfjkLBEnDl82RwD9cNOp3291okzVe4A9jQOQtv2envMMO4iMnR2NSUJRaMpt4ReIH0XRiKuN70/UX tgTem99v3KvAiBCm6fjHYpm8rVZbwMSBGPBr03Yiwdh3EC1z/CG+QMjS+Q0Z+D4NWD14=; Original-Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ndtij-0003QT-Vn; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:04:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: <874k2z3hj8.fsf@yahoo.com> (Po Lu's message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:56:27 +0800") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a01:4f9:2b:f0f::2; envelope-from=larsi@gnus.org; helo=quimby.gnus.org X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:288184 Archived-At: Po Lu writes: > The object might be garbage collected, and another one could be consed > with the same type tag and address as the original. It seems rather unlikely -- especially since it's also checking that the index is the expected one. > So we should probably mark that data upon garbage collection. For the imagemagick cache, we're just using a cookie, that's basically what we're doing here, too. Perhaps sxhashing the spec and using that instead would be fine, but it's slower, and we don't really care that much about correctness here -- we're just using this to speed things up, after all. So I dunno. My only worry was that not gc-protecting it might lead to a segfault somewhere. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no