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: [PATCH] Re: Should (buffer-list) ever return killed buffers? Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 15:01:23 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87wnrpujo0.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <871r9w5jws.fsf_-_@osv.gnss.ru> <83a6okdx60.fsf@gnu.org> <6381ce45-24d5-90f7-c490-7006460f7f43@gmx.at> <835yz8dvfk.fsf@gnu.org> <83zgwkccw1.fsf@gnu.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="23900"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: martin rudalics , cpitclaudel@gmail.com, sorganov@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 24 21:03:13 2021 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 1llFr7-00060D-Ed for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 May 2021 21:03:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36302 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1llFr6-0002nA-Ga for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 May 2021 15:03:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46762) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1llFpV-0001Zr-5r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 May 2021 15:01:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:18835) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1llFpQ-0002hA-5x; Mon, 24 May 2021 15:01:32 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9451910028B; Mon, 24 May 2021 15:01:25 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 125061000C9; Mon, 24 May 2021 15:01:24 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1621882884; bh=dWElvAdy4YR4KY1i7tyOUN4V7azc4Cm4ssBSeEuXPUk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=iL9v9hrq7qaK2fuxlpJVyLYMqxQg2eu75gUXsI7UYz82mT68IrcLk93ycbPbnx6Op B277R165/Hwj352N5Pa7eHGh88OMaohsdLIgp5WS6QLRX0WRT24HE/k8rH4ERMPr2A 6JJk1Iadbu4G0HNF6gncHCr/nUqbPIJPMg0ACsH2r5KnbXSBRGOZpbolYOk4TdHnTk t8w9e2QJLhM8QPyCm45DuJouizS3EXb0wZd57WlyLa6q/wuZg+VHnGz/Ecr7C9Z0+B d3M3slTRvOniAOcb+Ud37J3G3ynwDoPnFqsWep3yr+uVv8GXzKEb33YTeQsjD0yccb bVSfrWdJAEpLA== Original-Received: from alfajor (69-196-163-239.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.163.239]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C58C0120429; Mon, 24 May 2021 15:01:23 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83zgwkccw1.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 24 May 2021 19:30:54 +0300") 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: 2.1.23 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:269794 Archived-At: >> The bug is in `buffer-list' which should not return dead buffers. > I don't think it's practical to guarantee that, Actually, I think it does guarantee that currently (at least when called with no arguments). > given the myriad of hooks we have. But none of them can be called during the execution of `buffer-list` so it's easy to ensure that all the buffers are live. Of course, that won't solve the problem here where the buffers become dead subsequently while the code is iterating through the list previously returned by `buffer-list`. Stefan