bug#71012: 30.0.50; tree-sitter crash

[Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>]

> On Jul 25, 2024, at 3:40 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
>> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:26:30 -0700
>> Cc: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <basil@contovou.net>,
>> 71012@debbugs.gnu.org,
>> Helmut Eller <eller.helmut@gmail.com>
>> 
>>> On Jul 24, 2024, at 10:27 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <basil@contovou.net>
>>>> Cc: casouri@gmail.com,  71012@debbugs.gnu.org,  eller.helmut@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 01:32:01 +0200
>>>> 
>>>> Eli Zaretskii [2024-07-24 19:31 +0300] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Cc: 71012@debbugs.gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com
>>>>>> From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <basil@contovou.net>
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:57:53 +0200
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ping: thoughts on whether this is an issue?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thoughts about what? what is deemed to be a problem in this case?
>>>> 
>>>> That each call to treesit-parse-string now allocates a new internal
>>>> buffer which is not automatically GCed.
>>>> 
>>>> If this cannot be avoided, I think the docs should at least warn that
>>>> it's the caller's responsibility to kill the return node's buffer when
>>>> finished with it.
>>> 
>>> If the buffers aren't killed by the code, it's indeed an issue that
>>> needs to be solved.  At the time I suggested that the node's buffer is
>>> killed when the node is GC'ed or deleted -- have this not been done?
>> 
>> No. I think it’s best to implement treesit-parse-string in C with ts_parse_string now. That way we don’t need to worry about the temp buffer.
> 
> That'd be fine as well, yes.

Just to update that this is taking longer than I expected. I need to change many things so the parsed tree ends up properly gc’ed. Now I remember why I used with-temp-buffer at the first place :-)

Yuan