GNU bug report logs - #25247
26.0.50; Concurrency crashes

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 10:21:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: fixed

Found in version 26.0.50

Done: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #50 received at 25247 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Elias MÃ¥rtenson <lokedhs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: raeburn <at> raeburn.org, 25247 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, tino.calancha <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 13:05:46 +0200
> From: Elias MÃ¥rtenson <lokedhs <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:30:05 +0800
> Cc: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com>, raeburn <at> raeburn.org, 25247 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> The C-g issue is still gone.
> 
> As for the concurrency issues. I have been hammering this thing pretty
> hard, and no crashes so far.

Thanks, this is good news.

> I open IELM in one window, and an empty buffer "z" in another, and type the
> following:
> 
> (loop
>   repeat 10
>   do (make-thread (lambda ()
>                     (let ((n (random 10)))
>                       (with-current-buffer "z"
>                         (sleep-for n)
>                         (insert (format "Foo:%d\n" n)))))))
> 
> Here, I'd expect to see the "z" buffer being updated at the corresponding
> times. I.e. the message "Foo:4" should be displayed after 4 seconds. This
> is not what I see. Instead the messages appear in batches (i.e. several
> rows appearing at the same time).

And what do the messages that appear together say in the %d part?  Do
they all show the same value?

> The following seems to be a problem with lexically bound lambda functions
> used in a thread. The following example illustrates the problem:
> 
> (let ((x "test"))
>   (make-thread (lambda ()
>                  (with-current-buffer "z"
>                    (insert x)))))
> 
> I would expect this to insert "test" into the buffer, but instead nothing
> happens. Removing the reference to the variable "x" in the lambda makes it
> work.

Isn't the above expected?  If not, why not?

And what do you mean by "removing the reference"?




This bug report was last modified 8 years and 137 days ago.

Previous Next


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