all messages for Emacs-related lists mirrored at yhetil.org
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Gemini Lasswell <gazally@runbox.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: 33014@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#33014: 26.1.50; 27.0.50; Fatal error after re-evaluating a thread's function
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:05:19 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <878t2tbt34.fsf@runbox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83va5ypbpo.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:44:35 +0300")

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1166 bytes --]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> > Anyway, are you saying that stack marking doesn't work in optimized
>> > code?  We've been using this technique for the last 17 years without
>> > problems; why would the fact that we have more than one thread change
>> > that?  The same arguments you submit are valid for a single-threaded
>> > Emacs, right?
>> 
>> Apparently so.  I set up a single-threaded situation where I could
>> redefine a function while exec_byte_code was running it, and got a
>> segfault.  I've gained some insights from debugging this version of the
>> bug which I will put into a separate email.
>
> If this is the case, then I think we should protect the definition of
> a running function from GC, in some way, either by making sure it is
> referenced by some stack-based Lisp object, even in heavily optimized
> code (e.g., by using 'volatile' qualifiers); or by some other method
> that will ensure that definition is marked and not swept.

Maybe code optimizers have improved over the last 17 years?

I have patched Emacs with a 'volatile' on the definition of 'fun' in
Ffuncall, and so far haven't managed to reproduce the bug with it:


[-- Attachment #2: 0001-src-eval.c-Ffuncall-Make-local-variable-fun-volatile.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 801 bytes --]

From a1fc2dfd392e0ba8754159d855da231a56ca275b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Gemini Lasswell <gazally@runbox.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 12:12:04 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] * src/eval.c (Ffuncall): Make local variable 'fun' volatile
 (bug#33014)

---
 src/eval.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/eval.c b/src/eval.c
index 5e25caaa84..75b30f9c7d 100644
--- a/src/eval.c
+++ b/src/eval.c
@@ -2817,8 +2817,8 @@ Thus, (funcall \\='cons \\='x \\='y) returns (x . y).
 usage: (funcall FUNCTION &rest ARGUMENTS)  */)
   (ptrdiff_t nargs, Lisp_Object *args)
 {
-  Lisp_Object fun, original_fun;
-  Lisp_Object funcar;
+  Lisp_Object volatile fun;
+  Lisp_Object original_fun, funcar;
   ptrdiff_t numargs = nargs - 1;
   Lisp_Object val;
   ptrdiff_t count;
-- 
2.16.4


[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 354 bytes --]


I'll go back now to working on my benchmarking project which I hope
someday will make it easy to see if that 'volatile' causes measurable
harm to performance.  I'll also keep using 'eval-region' and 'eval-buffer'
while I have threads running byte-compiled functions which get redefined
by doing that, and report back here if I encounter this bug again.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-19 20:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-11  5:30 bug#33014: 26.1.50; 27.0.50; Fatal error after re-evaluating a thread's function Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-12  8:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-12 20:02   ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-13  6:23     ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-13 17:17       ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-13 18:04         ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-14 19:29           ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-15  2:37             ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-14 19:46           ` Andreas Schwab
2018-10-15 14:59             ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-15 16:22               ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-15 16:41                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-16 18:46               ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-16 19:25                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-16 19:38                   ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-19  0:22                   ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-19  8:44                     ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-19 20:05                       ` Gemini Lasswell [this message]
2018-10-20  6:41                         ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-20  8:23                           ` Andreas Schwab
2018-10-20 10:20                             ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-20 11:30                               ` Andreas Schwab
2018-10-29 18:24                           ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-29 19:41                             ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-19 19:32                     ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-17 16:21                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-18  1:07                   ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-18 17:04                     ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-19  0:39                       ` Gemini Lasswell
2018-10-19  8:38                         ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-10-29 18:56                       ` Stefan Monnier
2018-10-31  4:49 ` Paul Eggert
2018-10-31 15:33   ` Eli Zaretskii
2018-11-01 23:15   ` Gemini Lasswell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=878t2tbt34.fsf@runbox.com \
    --to=gazally@runbox.com \
    --cc=33014@debbugs.gnu.org \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.