From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: noverlay branch Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2022 00:12:49 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87sfjzefvv.fsf@rfc20.org> <875ygt6gbj.fsf@rfc20.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="12108"; 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: Matt Armstrong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 09 06:14:28 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 1ohNhr-0002wu-NY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2022 06:14:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34500 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ohNhq-0005ZW-M2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2022 00:14:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53340) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ohNgQ-0004KT-0m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2022 00:12:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:20309) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ohNgN-0006w0-6k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2022 00:12:56 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B362344026F; Sun, 9 Oct 2022 00:12:53 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A41FF440058; Sun, 9 Oct 2022 00:12:51 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1665288771; bh=6J+qQWDlaRBuoRMUPCO9Bpax8I+ZOiK9ajkjKfoubWM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=O+KNTHcP64szRNDyaPQj0oTnHvvegXNJlyKlM9s6wRlX02GtjVxaodxUcWVBEDoBS Zp5JaIVo9TLOcux9djWQsMReZicUghIPRQLsO4+fF3GvgTzKUou7P0jTat1tNof9sX 9tL69EpVxY22LdS4SQj/SR84n4rL5J8KdbFfOV2ixLG7lUVKaFHlRiOuGaILe/0RVh ox6WZ2Gz8l3gb4xsp/JKH73r8CCM3VaXu9z2R5RzhXnYk8TK6GRAeY9edx+jLR2c+L whpC4o9B24Q+qlax5y5Mr+arXJEo5dzCKYHGh1lWUzTIomJrzcwXUUXdjS4xim9Mjy R1Dq77c5sTIZw== Original-Received: from pastel (65-110-220-202.cpe.pppoe.ca [65.110.220.202]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68E97120228; Sun, 9 Oct 2022 00:12:51 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <875ygt6gbj.fsf@rfc20.org> (Matt Armstrong's message of "Sat, 08 Oct 2022 16:33:52 -0700") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 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:297238 Archived-At: > In any case, I do have a new test for tests/src/buffer-tests.el that > crashes feature/noverlay Emacs immediately, when ENABLE_CHECKING is on, > in a spot in itree.c having to do with offset inheritance. (Not?) great! > Two patches, also on https://git.sr.ht/~matta/emacs/log/feature/noverlay > as before. Merged (along with another that you apparently pushed since). > I'll work on fixing the crash next, but wanted to get the > test in because it takes an...interesting approach...that may require > discussion. I'm fine with the random testing approach (I'd be happy to see something like `propcheck` used in our testing rig). Currently, our test suite is not really setup to test Emacs crashes very well, so it's not ideal. Still: better than nothing. > @@ -1086,9 +1086,17 @@ interval_tree_inherit_offset (uintmax_t otick, struct interval_node *node) > node->right->offset += node->offset; > node->offset = 0; > } > - /* FIXME: I wonder when/why this condition can be false, and more generally > - why we'd want to propagate offsets that may not be fully up-to-date. */ > - if (node->parent == ITREE_NULL || node->parent->otick == otick) > + /* FIXME: I wonder when/why this condition can be false, and more > + generally why we'd want to propagate offsets that may not be > + fully up-to-date. --stef > + > + Offsets can be inherited from dirty nodes (with out of date > + otick) during insert and remove. Offsets aren't inherited > + downward from the root for these operations so rotations are > + performed on potentially "dirty" nodes. We could fix this by > + always inheriting offsets downward from the root for every insert > + and remove. --matt > + */ > node->otick = otick; > } Indeed, I saw later in the remove code that we do propagate offsets without caring if they're up-to-date, and I think the logic behind that is sound. And indeed we can drop the test because the only property we only ever care about for an `otick` is whether it's equal to `tree->otick`, so if node->parent->otick != otick then performing the assignment is equivalent to not performing it. Stefan