GNU bug report logs - #11519
"Wrong type argument: characterp" building custom-deps while boostrapping

Previous Next

Full log

Message #71 received at 11519 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ken Brown <kbrown <at> cornell.edu>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: lekktu <at> gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, schwab <at> linux-m68k.org,
	Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>, 11519 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11519: "Wrong type argument: characterp" building custom-deps
	while boostrapping
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:23:21 -0400

On 5/23/2012 10:16 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Which other places use C pointers to buffer text and call functions
>> that can allocate memory?
>
> IIUC any place that uses STRING_CHAR_AND_LENGTH on buffer text is
> vulnerable to the problem.
>
>> Anyway, are you against committing this to the release branch?  I'd be
>> very sad if you were, having invested so much time in hunting this
>> bug, but I guess I'll survive.
>
> I'm not dead set against it, and I'm glad we found the culprit so we can
> fix it: fixing it on the release branch is not that important, since this
> bug has been with us since Emacs-23.1, AFAICT.
>
> If you really want to install your workaround on the emacs-24 branch, go
> for it but let's try to find a real fix for the trunk.
>
>>>>> I wonder: why do we use REL_ALLOC?
>>>> AFAIK, we do that only on platforms that don't support mmap for
>>>> allocating buffer text.
>>> So, IIUC the only reason to use it is so that we can more often return
>>> memory to the OS even for the non-mmap case?  Is that because returning
>>> memory can only be done via sbrk style memory management?
>> I don't think this is only about _returning_ memory.  It is first and
>> foremost about not _asking_ for more memory when we can come up with
>> it by reshuffling buffer text.
>
> So you're saying it's use for fragmentation reasons?
> But on other platforms where we use mmap, we do suffer from this
> fragmentation, and yet it doesn't seem to be a real source of problem.
> That's why I think the only real reason is because memory can only be
> returned via sbrk-style memory management (i.e. only free memory at the
> end of the heap can be returned).  Is that right?
>
> I guess my question turns into "why do we use gmalloc.c instead of
> a malloc library that uses mmap (or some other mechanism that lets it
> return large free chunks to the OS)"?
>
> AFAIK, Windows is pretty much the only system where we use gmalloc.c and
> ralloc.c nowadays.  Does anyone remember why we don't use the system
> malloc under Windows (and Cygwin)?

Cygwin uses gmalloc.c but not ralloc.c; it uses mmap for buffers.  There 
are two reasons for using gmalloc.c on Cygwin.  The first, which may or 
may not be important, is that Cygwin's malloc doesn't support 
__after_morecore_hook, malloc_get_state, or malloc_set_state.  The 
second has to do with the way emacs is dumped on Cygwin.  See the 
comment starting at line 302 in gmalloc.c.

I would love to find a better way to deal with this and be able to use 
the system malloc on Cygwin.

Ken

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.