GNU bug report logs - #60237
30.0.50; tree sitter core dumps when I edebug view a node

Previous Next

Full log

Message #56 received at 60237 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Po Lu <luangruo <at> yahoo.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
 60237 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#60237: 30.0.50; tree sitter core dumps when I edebug view a
 node
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:22:04 +0000

Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com> writes:

>> On Feb 26, 2023, at 1:41 AM, Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> GC has historically never called xmalloc, so the profiler will
>>>> likely
>>>> crash upon growing the mark stack as well.  I guess another
>>>> important
>>>> question is why ts_delete_parser is calling xmalloc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> As you see, when we call ts_tree_delete, it calls
>>>> ts_subtree_release,
>>>> which in turn calls malloc (redirected into our xmalloc).  Is this
>>>> expected?  Can you look in the tree-sitter sources and verify that
>>>> this is OK?
>>>
>>> I had a look, and it seems legit. In tree-sitter, a TSTree (or more
>>> precisely, a Subtree) is just some inlined data plus a refcounted
>>> pointer to the complete data. This way multiple trees share common
>>> subtrees/nodes. Eg, when incrementally parsing, you pass in an old
>>> tree and get a new tree, these two trees will share the unchanged part
>>> of the tree.
>>
>> Would that mean we could possibly preserve node instances -- either
>> the real TS ones, or an Emacs-created facsimile -- between
>> incremental parsing? That would be useful for refactoring.
>
> What kind of exact interface (function) do you want? The
> treesit-node-outdated error is solely Emacs’s product, tree-sitter
> itself doesn’t mark a node outdated. It is possible for Emacs to not
> delete the old tree and give it to you, or allow you to access
> information of an outdated node.

OK, so let me explain:

Touching the buffer for any reason invalidates the whole tree; that's
not good. It's not good, because a lot of the information may still be
useful and viable. Outdating the node is not a bad idea as it avoids a
lot of 'traps' around accidental modifications that can corrupt things
without the developer's knowledge.

I'd like to be able to access all the information possible; perhaps
behind a flag variable like `treesit-allow-outdated-node-access'. What
I'm really mostly interested in is:

- How well the node references handle changes in byte positions in TS.

- Does changing something at X shift (like a `point-marker`) everything
below it? Does an outdated node correctly reference its new location
and state, such as changes to children or its position in the tree?

Right now, Combobulate can make a proxy node, which essentially
captures the basics of a live node and stores it in a defstruct. That
way I can at least retain the start/end, type, text, etc. of a node
and still do light refactoring without contorting myself to do things
in a particular order, which is not always possible (like delaying
editing to the very end.)

Previous Next

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