From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why do Fdefvar not protect its argument and temporaries with GCPRO? Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:51:45 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416405142 32075 80.91.229.3 (19 Nov 2014 13:52:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Lee Duhem , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 19 14:52:16 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 1Xr5g8-0003zX-50 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:52:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58274 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr5g7-00025k-EW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:52:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47855) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr5fs-0001oB-Ka for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:52:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr5fh-0001qD-0J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:52:00 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:38569) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr5fg-0001pS-3z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:51:48 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id sAJDpjZK021647; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:51:45 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 2EE0762BA; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:51:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:44:48 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV5130=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9393 : core <5130> : inlines <1542> : streams <1345139> : uri <1835299> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 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:177748 Archived-At: > I think a few of them do too much GCPRO, since arguments of lisp > functions are protected by the caller (and conses are not relocated). Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but to clarify: The calling convention we use does not require the caller to gcprotect the arguments, instead it's the callee who should protect its own arguments, if and when needed. >> Is this a bug? > In this case, I think it is. Agreed. Stefan