GNU bug report logs - #46988
28.0.50; Documenting and verifying assumptions about C code not calling quit or GCing

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 46988 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mattiase <at> acm.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, pipcet <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#46988: 28.0.50; Documenting and verifying assumptions about C code not calling quit or GCing
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:47:48 +0300

> Cc: 46988 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>  Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>,
>  Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 03:41:42 +0200
> 
> Pip Cet <pipcet <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Patch attached. It assumes the standard stack growth direction, and
> > that __builtin_frame_address (0) is available and works. Uses GCC's
> > __attribute__ ((cleanup (...))).
> >
> > My point here is that the technical implementation isn't the problem,
> > the question is whether we're disciplined enough to run with checking
> > enabled and react to bug reports about the fatal error being thrown.
> 
> I've respun the patch for the current trunk, and I wonder whether
> anybody has any comments here (so I've added Stefan and Mattias to the
> CCs).
> 
> I think if we add this, it should be enabled only if the build is
> configured with --enable-checking.

Yes, I agree.

In addition, AFAIU this uses some GCC-specific stuff without providing
for other compilers that don't support the same literal features.

Previous Next

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