From unknown Thu Jun 19 16:21:48 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#61504 <61504@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#61504 <61504@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash Reply-To: bug#61504 <61504@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 23:21:48 +0000 retitle 61504 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSE= GV crash reassign 61504 emacs submitter 61504 Istvan Marko severity 61504 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 01:34:05 2023 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 06:34:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52327 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRotA-0003Rv-MR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 01:34:05 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:58386) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRot9-0003Ro-9K for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 01:34:03 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pRot9-0005W3-2I for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 01:34:03 -0500 Received: from imarko.xen.prgmr.com ([71.19.158.228]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pRot6-0000yi-Sp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 01:34:02 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=zsu.kismala.com) by imarko.xen.prgmr.com with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRot1-000427-Dq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 22:33:55 -0800 From: Istvan Marko To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 22:33:54 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=71.19.158.228; envelope-from=mi-ebugs@kismala.com; helo=imarko.xen.prgmr.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) There seems to be a byte-code change between versions 0ec0a610ed226419269f519021cbe8fb2dde2ed5 (old) and a4aa32bdfff7aaf54efbacbb04b7f2b52fef92a7 (new) which causes the new version to crash with SIGSEGV when executing certain code from an .elc built using the old version. Recompiling the file with the new version causes the new .elc to work correctly. I am able to reproduce this by calling (pdf-tools-install-noverify) from the pdf-tools.elc (compiled with the older emacs version) from the pdf-tools package which is available at https://github.com/politza/pdf-tools This snippet in particular triggers the crash: (dolist (buf (buffer-list)) ;; This when check should not be necessary, but somehow dead ;; buffers are showing up here. See ;; https://github.com/vedang/pdf-tools/pull/93 (when (buffer-live-p buf) (with-current-buffer buf (when (and (not (derived-mode-p 'pdf-view-mode)) (pdf-tools-pdf-buffer-p) (buffer-file-name)) (pdf-view-mode))))) The crash happens in the pdf-tools-pdf-buffer-p function: (defun pdf-tools-pdf-buffer-p (&optional buffer) "Check if the current buffer is a PDF document. Optionally, take BUFFER as an argument and check if it is a PDF document." (save-current-buffer (when buffer (set-buffer buffer)) (save-excursion (save-restriction (widen) (goto-char 1) (looking-at "%PDF"))))) I can try to create a smaller standalone reproducer if needed. backtrace: Thread 1 "emacs" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x00001555529d17a7 in free () from /lib64/libc.so.6 (gdb) bt #0 0x00001555529d17a7 in free () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x00000000001e66bc in ?? () #2 0x00005555557693d4 in safe_free (sa_count=...) at /mnt/sdc1/tmp/emacs/src/lisp.h:5385 #3 apply_lambda (fun=0x555557654ccd, args=, count=...) at eval.c:3109 #4 0x00005555557679e6 in eval_sub (form=) at eval.c:2588 #5 0x000055555576800d in Fprogn (body=0x555557678033) at eval.c:436 #6 0x0000555555767cf2 in eval_sub (form=) at eval.c:2449 #7 0x000055555576a2b9 in internal_lisp_condition_case (var=0x927910, bodyform=0x555557677753, handlers=) at eval.c:1428 #8 0x0000555555767cf2 in eval_sub (form=) at eval.c:2449 #9 0x00005555557688bd in Fprogn (body=0x0) at eval.c:436 #10 Fif (args=) at eval.c:392 #11 Fif (args=) at eval.c:378 #12 0x0000555555767cf2 in eval_sub (form=) at eval.c:2449 #13 0x000055555576800d in Fprogn (body=0x5555576b4ee3) at eval.c:436 #14 0x0000555555767cf2 in eval_sub (form=) at eval.c:2449 #15 0x000055555576a2b9 in internal_lisp_condition_case (var=0x927910, bodyform=0x5555576ad993, handlers=) at eval.c:1428 #16 0x0000555555767cf2 in eval_sub (form=) at eval.c:2449 #17 0x000055555578f800 in readevalloop_eager_expand_eval (val=0x0, macroexpand=0xffffbffff97a1430) at /mnt/sdc1/tmp/emacs/src/lisp.h:1516 #18 0x0000555555797a7b in readevalloop (readcharfun=0x555555f7ecad, infile0=0x0, sourcename=0x55555618c784, printflag=false, unibyte=, readfun=0x0, start=0x0, end=0x0) at lread.c:2347 #19 0x0000555555798cfc in Feval_buffer (buffer=, printflag=0x0, filename=0x55555618c784, unibyte=0x0, do_allow_print=0x30) at lread.c:2420 #20 0x00005555557ab3e7 in exec_byte_code (fun=, args_template=, nargs=, args=) at bytecode.c:809 #21 0x0000555555763f63 in Ffuncall (nargs=nargs@entry=5, args=args@entry=0x7fffffffdae0) at eval.c:2995 #22 0x0000555555798a9d in call4 (arg4=0x30, arg3=0x30, arg2=0x55555618c784, arg1=0x55555618c784, fn=) at /mnt/sdc1/tmp/emacs/src/lisp.h:3269 #23 Fload (file=, noerror=0xffffbffff9503bb0, nomessage=0xffffbffff9503ab0, nosuffix=, must_suffix=) at lread.c:1484 #24 0x00005555557ab3e7 in exec_byte_code (fun=, args_template=, nargs=, args=) at bytecode.c:809 #25 0x0000555555769387 in apply_lambda (fun=0x15554f4bac2d, args=, count=...) at eval.c:3103 #26 0x00005555557679e6 in eval_sub (form=) at eval.c:2588 #27 0x000055555576a4b7 in Feval (form=0x15554f8f188b, lexical=) at eval.c:2361 #28 0x0000555555762627 in internal_condition_case (bfun=bfun@entry=0x5555556d5510 , handlers=handlers@entry=0x90, hfun=hfun@entry=0x5555556dcd10 ) at eval.c:1474 #29 0x00005555556d5ee6 in top_level_1 (ignore=ignore@entry=0x0) at keyboard.c:1141 #30 0x0000555555762581 in internal_catch (tag=tag@entry=0xffc0, func=func@entry=0x5555556d5ec0 , arg=arg@entry=0x0) at eval.c:1197 #31 0x00005555556d548f in command_loop () at keyboard.c:1101 #32 0x00005555556dc894 in recursive_edit_1 () at keyboard.c:711 #33 0x00005555556dcc1c in Frecursive_edit () at keyboard.c:794 #34 0x00005555555aa4bd in main (argc=, argv=) at emacs.c:2529 (gdb) xbacktrace "pdf-tools-install-noverify" (0x4ed262b8) "pdf-tools-install" (0xffffd120) "progn" (0xffffd2a0) "condition-case" (0xffffd400) "if" (0xffffd4e0) "progn" (0xffffd5c0) "condition-case" (0xffffd720) "eval-buffer" (0x4ed26248) "load-with-code-conversion" (0xffffdae8) "load" (0x4ed26168) "startup--load-user-init-file" (0x4ed260c0) "command-line" (0x4ed26040) "normal-top-level" (0xffffdc50) In GNU Emacs 29.0.60 (build 1, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.24.34, cairo version 1.16.0) of 2023-02-13 built on foo.bar.com Repository revision: a4aa32bdfff7aaf54efbacbb04b7f2b52fef92a7 Repository branch: HEAD System Description: Gentoo/Linux Configured features: ACL CAIRO DBUS FREETYPE GIF GLIB GMP GNUTLS GSETTINGS HARFBUZZ JPEG JSON LCMS2 LIBXML2 MODULES NOTIFY INOTIFY PDUMPER PNG RSVG SECCOMP SOUND SQLITE3 THREADS TIFF TOOLKIT_SCROLL_BARS TREE_SITTER WEBP X11 XDBE XIM XINPUT2 XPM GTK3 ZLIB -- Istvan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 04:29:36 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 09:29:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52564 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRrd2-0008FV-BN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 04:29:36 -0500 Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:56188) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRrd0-0008FM-Hf for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 04:29:35 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1676366973; bh=OBAeORT7qTZ2YCWzADBq3b/8nY9RmNHKZlmAiXcuv50=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=jTU9ky6puYv5+s1CHYpCf5aUSVBVsNRvXc44lzvzp8U65w7dpkwdC281Nf2J0zWMZ FTMYOzBa3UXHyCrmEkjdZbxF6PErT29BmsgCjt+1p4b7oe4Il27mr4NjnmypUpeWRQ /e7773t92FEW5qf/Y5P+TRsIU7NC46aKAIRhz9sEBBQ1qgQHqKkq8DbDlXycfU2zLv VSYRz0UD5nOpZ4SAMnTHPiqpM8wAVtFuG4TwG8cTWFT+Qo231P1q8tbPQmXbpT6i/z FbyxpAZolcVStNH8GD8TzfAO7LoKNl0J35vYDBi7o3pbYyXJQRhEpW3bpG6w6tBGA9 Y0GaupKODazmA== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:29:32 +0000 From: Gregory Heytings To: Istvan Marko Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="YkMxnCQia1" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --YkMxnCQia1 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii > > There seems to be a byte-code change between versions > 0ec0a610ed226419269f519021cbe8fb2dde2ed5 (old) and > a4aa32bdfff7aaf54efbacbb04b7f2b52fef92a7 (new) which causes the new > version to crash with SIGSEGV when executing certain code from an .elc > built using the old version. Recompiling the file with the new version > causes the new .elc to work correctly. > The bytecode did not change, but the byte codes generated by the save-restriction form did change. Now that I think of it again, it is possible make that change while preserving backward compatibility. Eli, what do you think of the attached patch? It restores the 'unbind 1' at the end of save-restriction, and puts the two data elements into a cons instead of pushing them separately. (Of course this passes make and make check, with and without native compilation.) --YkMxnCQia1 Content-Type: text/x-diff; name=Improve-backward-compatibility-of-save-restriction.patch Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <0f053182b016f28f2bab@heytings.org> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=Improve-backward-compatibility-of-save-restriction.patch RnJvbSA4NWY0YTI4NTE1MTRmYWQ5ODFiNzRhYmUxNGI4MzMxOTZkNTk4N2Iw IE1vbiBTZXAgMTcgMDA6MDA6MDAgMjAwMQ0KRnJvbTogR3JlZ29yeSBIZXl0 aW5ncyA8Z3JlZ29yeUBoZXl0aW5ncy5vcmc+DQpEYXRlOiBUdWUsIDE0IEZl YiAyMDIzIDA5OjIyOjIyICswMDAwDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbUEFUQ0hdIEltcHJv dmUgYmFja3dhcmQgY29tcGF0aWJpbGl0eSBvZiBzYXZlLXJlc3RyaWN0aW9u DQoNCiogc3JjL2VkaXRmbnMuYyAoc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9hbmRfbmFy cm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3Jlc3RvcmUpOg0KTmV3IGZ1bmN0aW9uLCBjb21iaW5p bmcgJ3NhdmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25fcmVzdG9yZScgYW5kDQonbmFycm93aW5n X2xvY2tzX3Jlc3RvcmUnLg0KKG5hcnJvd2luZ19sb2Nrc19yZXN0b3JlKTog TWFrZSBzdGF0aWMuDQooRnNhdmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rpb24pOiBVc2UgdGhlIG5l dyBmdW5jdGlvbiBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIHRoZSB0d28gb25lcw0KaXQgY29tYmlu ZXMuDQoNCiogc3JjL2xpc3AuaDogTWFrZSB0aGUgbmV3IGZ1bmN0aW9uIGV4 dGVybmFsbHkgdmlzaWJsZS4NCg0KKiBzcmMvYnl0ZWNvZGUuYyAoZXhlY19i eXRlX2NvZGUpOiBVc2UgdGhlIG5ldyBmdW5jdGlvbiBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mDQp0 aGUgdHdvIG9uZXMgaXQgY29tYmluZXMuDQoNCiogc3JjL2NvbXAuYyAoaGVs cGVyX3NhdmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rpb24pOiBVc2UgdGhlIG5ldyBmdW5jdGlvbg0K aW5zdGVhZCBvZiB0aGUgdHdvIG9uZXMgaXQgY29tYmluZXMuDQoNCiogbGlz cC9lbWFjcy1saXNwL2J5dGVjb21wLmVsIChieXRlLWNvbXBpbGUtc2F2ZS1y ZXN0cmljdGlvbik6DQpEZWNyZW1lbnQgdW5iaW5kaW5nIGNvdW50Lg0KLS0t DQogbGlzcC9lbWFjcy1saXNwL2J5dGVjb21wLmVsIHwgIDIgKy0NCiBzcmMv Ynl0ZWNvZGUuYyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfCAgNyArKystLS0tDQogc3JjL2Nv bXAuYyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgIDcgKysrLS0tLQ0KIHNyYy9lZGl0 Zm5zLmMgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB8IDE0ICsrKysrKysrKysrLS0tDQogc3Jj L2xpc3AuaCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgIDIgKy0NCiA1IGZpbGVzIGNo YW5nZWQsIDE5IGluc2VydGlvbnMoKyksIDEzIGRlbGV0aW9ucygtKQ0KDQpk aWZmIC0tZ2l0IGEvbGlzcC9lbWFjcy1saXNwL2J5dGVjb21wLmVsIGIvbGlz cC9lbWFjcy1saXNwL2J5dGVjb21wLmVsDQppbmRleCBjNmNkYTZiNTg4YS4u NWRmMTIwNTg2OWMgMTAwNjQ0DQotLS0gYS9saXNwL2VtYWNzLWxpc3AvYnl0 ZWNvbXAuZWwNCisrKyBiL2xpc3AvZW1hY3MtbGlzcC9ieXRlY29tcC5lbA0K QEAgLTQ5MDAsNyArNDkwMCw3IEBAIGJ5dGUtY29tcGlsZS1zYXZlLWV4Y3Vy c2lvbg0KIChkZWZ1biBieXRlLWNvbXBpbGUtc2F2ZS1yZXN0cmljdGlvbiAo Zm9ybSkNCiAgIChieXRlLWNvbXBpbGUtb3V0ICdieXRlLXNhdmUtcmVzdHJp Y3Rpb24gMCkNCiAgIChieXRlLWNvbXBpbGUtYm9keS1kby1lZmZlY3QgKGNk ciBmb3JtKSkNCi0gIChieXRlLWNvbXBpbGUtb3V0ICdieXRlLXVuYmluZCAy KSkNCisgIChieXRlLWNvbXBpbGUtb3V0ICdieXRlLXVuYmluZCAxKSkNCiAN CiAoZGVmdW4gYnl0ZS1jb21waWxlLXNhdmUtY3VycmVudC1idWZmZXIgKGZv cm0pDQogICAoYnl0ZS1jb21waWxlLW91dCAnYnl0ZS1zYXZlLWN1cnJlbnQt YnVmZmVyIDApDQpkaWZmIC0tZ2l0IGEvc3JjL2J5dGVjb2RlLmMgYi9zcmMv Ynl0ZWNvZGUuYw0KaW5kZXggOGUyMTQ1NjBmMzAuLmNhN2FlNDc2NmUxIDEw MDY0NA0KLS0tIGEvc3JjL2J5dGVjb2RlLmMNCisrKyBiL3NyYy9ieXRlY29k ZS5jDQpAQCAtOTQwLDEwICs5NDAsOSBAQCAjZGVmaW5lIERFRklORShuYW1l LCB2YWx1ZSkgW25hbWVdID0gJiZpbnNuXyAjIyBuYW1lLA0KIAkgIH0NCiAN CiAJQ0FTRSAoQnNhdmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rpb24pOg0KLQkgIHJlY29yZF91bndp bmRfcHJvdGVjdCAoc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9yZXN0b3JlLA0KLQkJCQkg c2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9zYXZlICgpKTsNCi0JICByZWNvcmRfdW53aW5k X3Byb3RlY3QgKG5hcnJvd2luZ19sb2Nrc19yZXN0b3JlLA0KLQkJCQkgbmFy cm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3NhdmUgKCkpOw0KKwkgIHJlY29yZF91bndpbmRfcHJv dGVjdCAoc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9hbmRfbmFycm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3Jl c3RvcmUsDQorCQkJCSBGY29ucyAoc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9zYXZlICgp LA0KKwkJCQkJbmFycm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3NhdmUgKCkpKTsNCiAJICBORVhU Ow0KIA0KIAlDQVNFIChCY2F0Y2gpOgkJLyogT2Jzb2xldGUgc2luY2UgMjUu ICAqLw0KZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL3NyYy9jb21wLmMgYi9zcmMvY29tcC5jDQpp bmRleCAwZTJkZmQzOTEzYi4uZmUyYzliMDU0YjYgMTAwNjQ0DQotLS0gYS9z cmMvY29tcC5jDQorKysgYi9zcmMvY29tcC5jDQpAQCAtNTA2MSwxMCArNTA2 MSw5IEBAIGhlbHBlcl91bmJpbmRfbiAoTGlzcF9PYmplY3QgbikNCiBzdGF0 aWMgdm9pZA0KIGhlbHBlcl9zYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uICh2b2lkKQ0KIHsN Ci0gIHJlY29yZF91bndpbmRfcHJvdGVjdCAoc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9y ZXN0b3JlLA0KLQkJCSBzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uX3NhdmUgKCkpOw0KLSAg cmVjb3JkX3Vud2luZF9wcm90ZWN0IChuYXJyb3dpbmdfbG9ja3NfcmVzdG9y ZSwNCi0JCQkgbmFycm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3NhdmUgKCkpOw0KKyAgcmVjb3Jk X3Vud2luZF9wcm90ZWN0IChzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uX2FuZF9uYXJyb3dp bmdfbG9ja3NfcmVzdG9yZSwNCisJCQkgRmNvbnMgKHNhdmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rp b25fc2F2ZSAoKSwNCisJCQkJbmFycm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3NhdmUgKCkpKTsN CiB9DQogDQogc3RhdGljIGJvb2wNCmRpZmYgLS1naXQgYS9zcmMvZWRpdGZu cy5jIGIvc3JjL2VkaXRmbnMuYw0KaW5kZXggY2UxMzM3ODVlMGIuLmRiY2M1 NzI4ZGRhIDEwMDY0NA0KLS0tIGEvc3JjL2VkaXRmbnMuYw0KKysrIGIvc3Jj L2VkaXRmbnMuYw0KQEAgLTI4MDQsNyArMjgwNCw3IEBAIG5hcnJvd2luZ19s b2Nrc19zYXZlICh2b2lkKQ0KICAgcmV0dXJuIEZjb25zIChidWYsIEZjb3B5 X3NlcXVlbmNlIChsb2NrcykpOw0KIH0NCiANCi12b2lkDQorc3RhdGljIHZv aWQNCiBuYXJyb3dpbmdfbG9ja3NfcmVzdG9yZSAoTGlzcF9PYmplY3QgYnVm X2FuZF9zYXZlZF9sb2NrcykNCiB7DQogICBMaXNwX09iamVjdCBidWYgPSBY Q0FSIChidWZfYW5kX3NhdmVkX2xvY2tzKTsNCkBAIC0zMDY4LDYgKzMwNjgs MTMgQEAgc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9yZXN0b3JlIChMaXNwX09iamVjdCBk YXRhKQ0KICAgICBzZXRfYnVmZmVyX2ludGVybmFsIChjdXIpOw0KIH0NCiAN Cit2b2lkDQorc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9hbmRfbmFycm93aW5nX2xvY2tz X3Jlc3RvcmUgKExpc3BfT2JqZWN0IGRhdGEpDQorew0KKyAgc2F2ZV9yZXN0 cmljdGlvbl9yZXN0b3JlIChYQ0FSIChkYXRhKSk7DQorICBuYXJyb3dpbmdf bG9ja3NfcmVzdG9yZSAoWENEUiAoZGF0YSkpOw0KK30NCisNCiBERUZVTiAo InNhdmUtcmVzdHJpY3Rpb24iLCBGc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbiwgU3NhdmVf cmVzdHJpY3Rpb24sIDAsIFVORVZBTExFRCwgMCwNCiAgICAgICAgZG9jOiAv KiBFeGVjdXRlIEJPRFksIHNhdmluZyBhbmQgcmVzdG9yaW5nIGN1cnJlbnQg YnVmZmVyJ3MgcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25zLg0KIFRoZSBidWZmZXIncyByZXN0cmlj dGlvbnMgbWFrZSBwYXJ0cyBvZiB0aGUgYmVnaW5uaW5nIGFuZCBlbmQgaW52 aXNpYmxlLg0KQEAgLTMwOTEsOCArMzA5OCw5IEBAIERFRlVOICgic2F2ZS1y ZXN0cmljdGlvbiIsIEZzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uLCBTc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmlj dGlvbiwgMCwgVU5FVkFMTEVELCAwDQogICByZWdpc3RlciBMaXNwX09iamVj dCB2YWw7DQogICBzcGVjcGRsX3JlZiBjb3VudCA9IFNQRUNQRExfSU5ERVgg KCk7DQogDQotICByZWNvcmRfdW53aW5kX3Byb3RlY3QgKHNhdmVfcmVzdHJp Y3Rpb25fcmVzdG9yZSwgc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9zYXZlICgpKTsNCi0g IHJlY29yZF91bndpbmRfcHJvdGVjdCAobmFycm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3Jlc3Rv cmUsIG5hcnJvd2luZ19sb2Nrc19zYXZlICgpKTsNCisgIHJlY29yZF91bndp bmRfcHJvdGVjdCAoc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9hbmRfbmFycm93aW5nX2xv Y2tzX3Jlc3RvcmUsDQorCQkJIEZjb25zIChzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uX3Nh dmUgKCksDQorCQkJCW5hcnJvd2luZ19sb2Nrc19zYXZlICgpKSk7DQogICB2 YWwgPSBGcHJvZ24gKGJvZHkpOw0KICAgcmV0dXJuIHVuYmluZF90byAoY291 bnQsIHZhbCk7DQogfQ0KZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL3NyYy9saXNwLmggYi9zcmMv bGlzcC5oDQppbmRleCA5MzE5N2QzODE3Ni4uYTg2YTJlODIzZjkgMTAwNjQ0 DQotLS0gYS9zcmMvbGlzcC5oDQorKysgYi9zcmMvbGlzcC5oDQpAQCAtNDY4 NSw3ICs0Njg1LDcgQEAgWE1PRFVMRV9GVU5DVElPTiAoTGlzcF9PYmplY3Qg bykNCiBleHRlcm4gTGlzcF9PYmplY3Qgc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9zYXZl ICh2b2lkKTsNCiBleHRlcm4gdm9pZCBzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uX3Jlc3Rv cmUgKExpc3BfT2JqZWN0KTsNCiBleHRlcm4gTGlzcF9PYmplY3QgbmFycm93 aW5nX2xvY2tzX3NhdmUgKHZvaWQpOw0KLWV4dGVybiB2b2lkIG5hcnJvd2lu Z19sb2Nrc19yZXN0b3JlIChMaXNwX09iamVjdCk7DQorZXh0ZXJuIHZvaWQg c2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9hbmRfbmFycm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3Jlc3RvcmUg KExpc3BfT2JqZWN0KTsNCiBleHRlcm4gTGlzcF9PYmplY3QgbWFrZV9idWZm ZXJfc3RyaW5nIChwdHJkaWZmX3QsIHB0cmRpZmZfdCwgYm9vbCk7DQogZXh0 ZXJuIExpc3BfT2JqZWN0IG1ha2VfYnVmZmVyX3N0cmluZ19ib3RoIChwdHJk aWZmX3QsIHB0cmRpZmZfdCwgcHRyZGlmZl90LA0KIAkJCQkJICAgIHB0cmRp ZmZfdCwgYm9vbCk7DQotLSANCjIuMzkuMA0KDQo= --YkMxnCQia1-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 08:30:42 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 13:30:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52895 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRvOL-0000mb-OT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 08:30:42 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:35768) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRvO9-0000m9-FS for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 08:30:39 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pRvO2-000358-PM; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 08:30:22 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=RaFJsGMeH9voHGXBWUDvGLOrYxXWDAVATYryQI3BHIM=; b=d96t7q1K7riPlw/VEDBd UmBoEuUWHDW8tuJKs2rxl8tzB1TlQl1ioqWof06asJ2BqkiqVoB4ho7VH5BiilbQP1IV8GbWsGzkt +3+rkBDEPjIuWPAAwFETTpQYi0I4gfc5MOmrsmWWQDa0R2xX9HEw/c2XhDnUv1szFxsPFROMmMAlw attdY9qMSaQwoSAYoNP38FotFhdq5rGB2RWWpdpV1wyDrjHBy1G0lGtL09oflqSEx1zxm0w3X4ihk HvTXyIDRT6bPffzKPiyrU+lMy2xof1R/jXgLscKFP0xA/UTLRQbXIgvZi0nY+W5/OAZYMsSy2KbUv hbndwz/a3eYdzA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pRvNt-0001bV-3T; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 08:30:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:29:50 +0200 Message-Id: <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Gregory Heytings , Mattias =?iso-8859-1?Q?Engdeg=E5rd?= , Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> (message from Gregory Heytings on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:29:32 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:29:32 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: Eli Zaretskii , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org > > > There seems to be a byte-code change between versions > > 0ec0a610ed226419269f519021cbe8fb2dde2ed5 (old) and > > a4aa32bdfff7aaf54efbacbb04b7f2b52fef92a7 (new) which causes the new > > version to crash with SIGSEGV when executing certain code from an .elc > > built using the old version. Recompiling the file with the new version > > causes the new .elc to work correctly. > > > > The bytecode did not change, but the byte codes generated by the > save-restriction form did change. > > Now that I think of it again, it is possible make that change while > preserving backward compatibility. > > Eli, what do you think of the attached patch? It restores the 'unbind 1' > at the end of save-restriction, and puts the two data elements into a cons > instead of pushing them separately. (Of course this passes make and make > check, with and without native compilation.) I guess we have no choice. Mattias, Stefan: any better alternatives, or comments/objections? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 10:22:17 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 15:22:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56736 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRx8L-0004kb-Bq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:22:17 -0500 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:44744) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRx8J-0004kO-J5 for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:22:16 -0500 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BCB3F80148; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:22:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4A23A805B7; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:22:08 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1676388128; bh=I5TUSQCEBuU8SDSXH/hhivuH5xParUShfBgp7lKlgXY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Zg2xlyM6UGuCul6esWw5cGg3XSbvXokXc+Xg1vzHeBYHkOrCV/D7IXTPB+w5VQOw7 9T/I7teq6wiLw7o5zZsUCWWiiFIAbdBbvwJ20Q4U25uINlQJUC3Nr3decXZBNIMlev 53Ci3kV/yhLaIT3VSbCjIpuxQCbTJ71J93lG8hjfK2oj1fKv/lOPyYZGegczIOeC34 KVhvq0Pm1PZ6JnQ81mEPOgShw/t6esCKtFFP831r8o9i2IbqXWOqCd3dzCkZTnNLkR 01jDlefURPb7wkNk9LlV+aK610JNjRz1tqfcHHOpp5NmZx4aWsL2LjoA/Y7Xadn0RR B/oYDzieQEzHg== Received: from pastel (69-165-145-123.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.165.145.123]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2247B1230F5; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:22:08 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Gregory Heytings Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> (Gregory Heytings's message of "Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:29:32 +0000") Message-ID: References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:22:05 -0500 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -1.036 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: Istvan Marko , Eli Zaretskii , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > Eli, what do you think of the attached patch? It restores the 'unbind 1' at > the end of save-restriction, and puts the two data elements into a cons > instead of pushing them separately. (Of course this passes make and make > check, with and without native compilation.) Looks right to me. Some comments below. Stefan > @@ -940,10 +940,9 @@ #define DEFINE(name, value) [name] = &&insn_ ## name, > } > > CASE (Bsave_restriction): > - record_unwind_protect (save_restriction_restore, > - save_restriction_save ()); > - record_unwind_protect (narrowing_locks_restore, > - narrowing_locks_save ()); > + record_unwind_protect (save_restriction_and_narrowing_locks_restore, > + Fcons (save_restriction_save (), > + narrowing_locks_save ())); > NEXT; Shouldn't the value returned by `save_restriction_save` include the narrowing locks already? IOW rather than changing this `bytecode.c` code, the locks handling should be "hidden" inside `save_restriction_restore` and `save_restriction_save`, don't you think? Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 11:00:39 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 16:00:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56774 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRxjS-0005k1-II for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:00:39 -0500 Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:56642) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRxjQ-0005jr-Vo for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:00:37 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1676390435; bh=0EID4rKAQbe4V4uMUyXq3mxt5tlvkbQEZlZlWdw4RW4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=GJSZ4Y1JkDtGcfMYIIG6MqT94QTPT08HbmJUV/W/zSGEVNoAMS21724rzEF0PYhJX a7qXC3uyw0dazDUyHj65xAyqN3yiXWY+EytwOOIRjH7HTl6G0fa+hboUQ6+l+LAQ1D 7h4Kqk3COBDyyy/egfEwB2RyhxYG5ODKEfDvbVXr2Cw3opJKcvL3f3JjEc4XCzJ1p+ hsVAKRyppfqXw1+ci67/6pSMdiWSRgYU1sZoMbQ7w0T+6jCibobcYcx44aZ3Jxqykd CNf2mF3UDSnFSTNZ/8F4gkKOBXpQo9A+K6xPJ8u+e6UYLdEKVf4sWIuREIAITaWWSI f0yYeZeEijWFA== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 16:00:35 +0000 From: Gregory Heytings To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0f053182b0be67f5117f@heytings.org> References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="v6Rtd9fMMU" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: Istvan Marko , Eli Zaretskii , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --v6Rtd9fMMU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > Looks right to me. > Many thanks for your review! >> @@ -940,10 +940,9 @@ #define DEFINE(name, value) [name] = &&insn_ ## name, >> } >> >> CASE (Bsave_restriction): >> - record_unwind_protect (save_restriction_restore, >> - save_restriction_save ()); >> - record_unwind_protect (narrowing_locks_restore, >> - narrowing_locks_save ()); >> + record_unwind_protect (save_restriction_and_narrowing_locks_restore, >> + Fcons (save_restriction_save (), >> + narrowing_locks_save ())); >> NEXT; > > Shouldn't the value returned by `save_restriction_save` include the > narrowing locks already? > > IOW rather than changing this `bytecode.c` code, the locks handling > should be "hidden" inside `save_restriction_restore` and > `save_restriction_save`, don't you think? > You mean, the attached patch? That's probably even better, indeed. (Again it passes make and make check, with and without native compilation.) --v6Rtd9fMMU Content-Type: text/x-diff; name=Improve-backward-compatibility-of-save-restriction.patch Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <0f053182b0c912c3db95@heytings.org> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=Improve-backward-compatibility-of-save-restriction.patch RnJvbSA3OWM1NTgxZDM0ZGE0YmFlY2Y1NTE0YzFkMGQyNWNmYmNjMzNmMDVk IE1vbiBTZXAgMTcgMDA6MDA6MDAgMjAwMQ0KRnJvbTogR3JlZ29yeSBIZXl0 aW5ncyA8Z3JlZ29yeUBoZXl0aW5ncy5vcmc+DQpEYXRlOiBUdWUsIDE0IEZl YiAyMDIzIDE1OjU5OjE2ICswMDAwDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbUEFUQ0hdIEltcHJv dmUgYmFja3dhcmQgY29tcGF0aWJpbGl0eSBvZiBzYXZlLXJlc3RyaWN0aW9u DQoNCiogc3JjL2VkaXRmbnMuYyAoc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9zYXZlXzEp OiBSZW5hbWVkIGZyb20NCidzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uc19zYXZlJy4NCihz YXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uX3Jlc3RvcmVfMSk6IFJlbmFtZWQgZnJvbQ0KJ3Nh dmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25fcmVzdG9yZScuDQooc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9y ZXN0b3JlKTogTmV3IGZ1bmN0aW9uLCBjb21iaW5pbmcNCidzYXZlX3Jlc3Ry aWN0aW9uX3NhdmVfMScgYW5kICduYXJyb3dpbmdfbG9ja3Nfc2F2ZScuDQoo c2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9zYXZlKTogTmV3IGZ1bmN0aW9uLCBjb21iaW5p bmcNCidzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uX3Jlc3RvcmVfMScgYW5kICduYXJyb3dp bmdfbG9ja3NfcmVzdG9yZScuDQooRnNhdmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rpb24pOiBSZXN0 b3JlIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91cyBjb2RlLg0KKG5hcnJvd2luZ19sb2Nrc19zYXZl LCBuYXJyb3dpbmdfbG9ja3NfcmVzdG9yZSk6IE1ha2UgdGhlbSBzdGF0aWMu DQoNCiogc3JjL2xpc3AuaDogUmVtb3ZlIHR3byBmdW5jdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBh cmUgbm90IGV4dGVybmFsbHkgdmlzaWJsZQ0KYW55bW9yZS4NCg0KKiBzcmMv Y29tcC5jIChoZWxwZXJfc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbik6IFJlc3RvcmUgdGhl IHByZXZpb3VzIGNvZGUuDQoNCiogc3JjL2J5dGVjb2RlLmMgKGV4ZWNfYnl0 ZV9jb2RlKTogUmVzdG9yZSB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMgY29kZS4NCg0KKiBsaXNw L2VtYWNzLWxpc3AvYnl0ZWNvbXAuZWwgKGJ5dGUtY29tcGlsZS1zYXZlLXJl c3RyaWN0aW9uKToNCkRlY3JlbWVudCB1bmJpbmRpbmcgY291bnQuDQotLS0N CiBsaXNwL2VtYWNzLWxpc3AvYnl0ZWNvbXAuZWwgfCAgMiArLQ0KIHNyYy9i eXRlY29kZS5jICAgICAgICAgICAgICB8ICAyIC0tDQogc3JjL2NvbXAuYyAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgIDIgLS0NCiBzcmMvZWRpdGZucy5jICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgfCAyNiArKysrKysrKysrKysrKysrKysrLS0tLS0tLQ0KIHNy Yy9saXNwLmggICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB8ICAyIC0tDQogNSBmaWxlcyBj aGFuZ2VkLCAyMCBpbnNlcnRpb25zKCspLCAxNCBkZWxldGlvbnMoLSkNCg0K ZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL2xpc3AvZW1hY3MtbGlzcC9ieXRlY29tcC5lbCBiL2xp c3AvZW1hY3MtbGlzcC9ieXRlY29tcC5lbA0KaW5kZXggYzZjZGE2YjU4OGEu LjVkZjEyMDU4NjljIDEwMDY0NA0KLS0tIGEvbGlzcC9lbWFjcy1saXNwL2J5 dGVjb21wLmVsDQorKysgYi9saXNwL2VtYWNzLWxpc3AvYnl0ZWNvbXAuZWwN CkBAIC00OTAwLDcgKzQ5MDAsNyBAQCBieXRlLWNvbXBpbGUtc2F2ZS1leGN1 cnNpb24NCiAoZGVmdW4gYnl0ZS1jb21waWxlLXNhdmUtcmVzdHJpY3Rpb24g KGZvcm0pDQogICAoYnl0ZS1jb21waWxlLW91dCAnYnl0ZS1zYXZlLXJlc3Ry aWN0aW9uIDApDQogICAoYnl0ZS1jb21waWxlLWJvZHktZG8tZWZmZWN0IChj ZHIgZm9ybSkpDQotICAoYnl0ZS1jb21waWxlLW91dCAnYnl0ZS11bmJpbmQg MikpDQorICAoYnl0ZS1jb21waWxlLW91dCAnYnl0ZS11bmJpbmQgMSkpDQog DQogKGRlZnVuIGJ5dGUtY29tcGlsZS1zYXZlLWN1cnJlbnQtYnVmZmVyIChm b3JtKQ0KICAgKGJ5dGUtY29tcGlsZS1vdXQgJ2J5dGUtc2F2ZS1jdXJyZW50 LWJ1ZmZlciAwKQ0KZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL3NyYy9ieXRlY29kZS5jIGIvc3Jj L2J5dGVjb2RlLmMNCmluZGV4IDhlMjE0NTYwZjMwLi4xMjQzNDhlNWIzNSAx MDA2NDQNCi0tLSBhL3NyYy9ieXRlY29kZS5jDQorKysgYi9zcmMvYnl0ZWNv ZGUuYw0KQEAgLTk0Miw4ICs5NDIsNiBAQCAjZGVmaW5lIERFRklORShuYW1l LCB2YWx1ZSkgW25hbWVdID0gJiZpbnNuXyAjIyBuYW1lLA0KIAlDQVNFIChC c2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbik6DQogCSAgcmVjb3JkX3Vud2luZF9wcm90ZWN0 IChzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uX3Jlc3RvcmUsDQogCQkJCSBzYXZlX3Jlc3Ry aWN0aW9uX3NhdmUgKCkpOw0KLQkgIHJlY29yZF91bndpbmRfcHJvdGVjdCAo bmFycm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3Jlc3RvcmUsDQotCQkJCSBuYXJyb3dpbmdfbG9j a3Nfc2F2ZSAoKSk7DQogCSAgTkVYVDsNCiANCiAJQ0FTRSAoQmNhdGNoKToJ CS8qIE9ic29sZXRlIHNpbmNlIDI1LiAgKi8NCmRpZmYgLS1naXQgYS9zcmMv Y29tcC5jIGIvc3JjL2NvbXAuYw0KaW5kZXggMGUyZGZkMzkxM2IuLjEwY2Y3 OTYyYmExIDEwMDY0NA0KLS0tIGEvc3JjL2NvbXAuYw0KKysrIGIvc3JjL2Nv bXAuYw0KQEAgLTUwNjMsOCArNTA2Myw2IEBAIGhlbHBlcl9zYXZlX3Jlc3Ry aWN0aW9uICh2b2lkKQ0KIHsNCiAgIHJlY29yZF91bndpbmRfcHJvdGVjdCAo c2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9yZXN0b3JlLA0KIAkJCSBzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0 aW9uX3NhdmUgKCkpOw0KLSAgcmVjb3JkX3Vud2luZF9wcm90ZWN0IChuYXJy b3dpbmdfbG9ja3NfcmVzdG9yZSwNCi0JCQkgbmFycm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3Nh dmUgKCkpOw0KIH0NCiANCiBzdGF0aWMgYm9vbA0KZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL3Ny Yy9lZGl0Zm5zLmMgYi9zcmMvZWRpdGZucy5jDQppbmRleCBjZTEzMzc4NWUw Yi4uMTUzNGY3OGFjZTcgMTAwNjQ0DQotLS0gYS9zcmMvZWRpdGZucy5jDQor KysgYi9zcmMvZWRpdGZucy5jDQpAQCAtMjc5NCw3ICsyNzk0LDcgQEAgcmVz ZXRfb3V0ZXJtb3N0X25hcnJvd2luZ3MgKHZvaWQpDQogDQogLyogSGVscGVy IGZ1bmN0aW9ucyB0byBzYXZlIGFuZCByZXN0b3JlIHRoZSBuYXJyb3dpbmcg bG9ja3Mgb2YgdGhlDQogICAgY3VycmVudCBidWZmZXIgaW4gRnNhdmVfcmVz dHJpY3Rpb24uICAqLw0KLUxpc3BfT2JqZWN0DQorc3RhdGljIExpc3BfT2Jq ZWN0DQogbmFycm93aW5nX2xvY2tzX3NhdmUgKHZvaWQpDQogew0KICAgTGlz cF9PYmplY3QgYnVmID0gRmN1cnJlbnRfYnVmZmVyICgpOw0KQEAgLTI4MDQs NyArMjgwNCw3IEBAIG5hcnJvd2luZ19sb2Nrc19zYXZlICh2b2lkKQ0KICAg cmV0dXJuIEZjb25zIChidWYsIEZjb3B5X3NlcXVlbmNlIChsb2NrcykpOw0K IH0NCiANCi12b2lkDQorc3RhdGljIHZvaWQNCiBuYXJyb3dpbmdfbG9ja3Nf cmVzdG9yZSAoTGlzcF9PYmplY3QgYnVmX2FuZF9zYXZlZF9sb2NrcykNCiB7 DQogICBMaXNwX09iamVjdCBidWYgPSBYQ0FSIChidWZfYW5kX3NhdmVkX2xv Y2tzKTsNCkBAIC0yOTc1LDggKzI5NzUsOCBAQCBERUZVTiAoImludGVybmFs LS11bmxvY2stbmFycm93aW5nIiwgRmludGVybmFsX191bmxvY2tfbmFycm93 aW5nLA0KICAgcmV0dXJuIFFuaWw7DQogfQ0KIA0KLUxpc3BfT2JqZWN0DQot c2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9zYXZlICh2b2lkKQ0KK3N0YXRpYyBMaXNwX09i amVjdA0KK3NhdmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25fc2F2ZV8xICh2b2lkKQ0KIHsNCiAg IGlmIChCRUdWID09IEJFRyAmJiBaViA9PSBaKQ0KICAgICAvKiBUaGUgY29t bW9uIGNhc2UgdGhhdCB0aGUgYnVmZmVyIGlzbid0IG5hcnJvd2VkLg0KQEAg LTI5OTksOCArMjk5OSw4IEBAIHNhdmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25fc2F2ZSAodm9p ZCkNCiAgICAgfQ0KIH0NCiANCi12b2lkDQotc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9y ZXN0b3JlIChMaXNwX09iamVjdCBkYXRhKQ0KK3N0YXRpYyB2b2lkDQorc2F2 ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9yZXN0b3JlXzEgKExpc3BfT2JqZWN0IGRhdGEpDQog ew0KICAgc3RydWN0IGJ1ZmZlciAqY3VyID0gTlVMTDsNCiAgIHN0cnVjdCBi dWZmZXIgKmJ1ZiA9IChDT05TUCAoZGF0YSkNCkBAIC0zMDY4LDYgKzMwNjgs MTkgQEAgc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9yZXN0b3JlIChMaXNwX09iamVjdCBk YXRhKQ0KICAgICBzZXRfYnVmZmVyX2ludGVybmFsIChjdXIpOw0KIH0NCiAN CitMaXNwX09iamVjdA0KK3NhdmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25fc2F2ZSAodm9pZCkN Cit7DQorICByZXR1cm4gRmNvbnMgKHNhdmVfcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25fc2F2ZV8x ICgpLCBuYXJyb3dpbmdfbG9ja3Nfc2F2ZSAoKSk7DQorfQ0KKw0KK3ZvaWQN CitzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uX3Jlc3RvcmUgKExpc3BfT2JqZWN0IGRhdGEp DQorew0KKyAgc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9yZXN0b3JlXzEgKFhDQVIgKGRh dGEpKTsNCisgIG5hcnJvd2luZ19sb2Nrc19yZXN0b3JlIChYQ0RSIChkYXRh KSk7DQorfQ0KKw0KIERFRlVOICgic2F2ZS1yZXN0cmljdGlvbiIsIEZzYXZl X3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uLCBTc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbiwgMCwgVU5FVkFMTEVE LCAwLA0KICAgICAgICBkb2M6IC8qIEV4ZWN1dGUgQk9EWSwgc2F2aW5nIGFu ZCByZXN0b3JpbmcgY3VycmVudCBidWZmZXIncyByZXN0cmljdGlvbnMuDQog VGhlIGJ1ZmZlcidzIHJlc3RyaWN0aW9ucyBtYWtlIHBhcnRzIG9mIHRoZSBi ZWdpbm5pbmcgYW5kIGVuZCBpbnZpc2libGUuDQpAQCAtMzA5Miw3ICszMTA1 LDYgQEAgREVGVU4gKCJzYXZlLXJlc3RyaWN0aW9uIiwgRnNhdmVfcmVzdHJp Y3Rpb24sIFNzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uLCAwLCBVTkVWQUxMRUQsIDANCiAg IHNwZWNwZGxfcmVmIGNvdW50ID0gU1BFQ1BETF9JTkRFWCAoKTsNCiANCiAg IHJlY29yZF91bndpbmRfcHJvdGVjdCAoc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9yZXN0 b3JlLCBzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uX3NhdmUgKCkpOw0KLSAgcmVjb3JkX3Vu d2luZF9wcm90ZWN0IChuYXJyb3dpbmdfbG9ja3NfcmVzdG9yZSwgbmFycm93 aW5nX2xvY2tzX3NhdmUgKCkpOw0KICAgdmFsID0gRnByb2duIChib2R5KTsN CiAgIHJldHVybiB1bmJpbmRfdG8gKGNvdW50LCB2YWwpOw0KIH0NCmRpZmYg LS1naXQgYS9zcmMvbGlzcC5oIGIvc3JjL2xpc3AuaA0KaW5kZXggOTMxOTdk MzgxNzYuLjEyNzYyODVlMmYyIDEwMDY0NA0KLS0tIGEvc3JjL2xpc3AuaA0K KysrIGIvc3JjL2xpc3AuaA0KQEAgLTQ2ODQsOCArNDY4NCw2IEBAIFhNT0RV TEVfRlVOQ1RJT04gKExpc3BfT2JqZWN0IG8pDQogZXh0ZXJuIHZvaWQgc2F2 ZV9leGN1cnNpb25fcmVzdG9yZSAoTGlzcF9PYmplY3QsIExpc3BfT2JqZWN0 KTsNCiBleHRlcm4gTGlzcF9PYmplY3Qgc2F2ZV9yZXN0cmljdGlvbl9zYXZl ICh2b2lkKTsNCiBleHRlcm4gdm9pZCBzYXZlX3Jlc3RyaWN0aW9uX3Jlc3Rv cmUgKExpc3BfT2JqZWN0KTsNCi1leHRlcm4gTGlzcF9PYmplY3QgbmFycm93 aW5nX2xvY2tzX3NhdmUgKHZvaWQpOw0KLWV4dGVybiB2b2lkIG5hcnJvd2lu Z19sb2Nrc19yZXN0b3JlIChMaXNwX09iamVjdCk7DQogZXh0ZXJuIExpc3Bf T2JqZWN0IG1ha2VfYnVmZmVyX3N0cmluZyAocHRyZGlmZl90LCBwdHJkaWZm X3QsIGJvb2wpOw0KIGV4dGVybiBMaXNwX09iamVjdCBtYWtlX2J1ZmZlcl9z dHJpbmdfYm90aCAocHRyZGlmZl90LCBwdHJkaWZmX3QsIHB0cmRpZmZfdCwN CiAJCQkJCSAgICBwdHJkaWZmX3QsIGJvb2wpOw0KLS0gDQoyLjM5LjANCg0K --v6Rtd9fMMU-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 11:47:59 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 16:47:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56819 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyTH-0006sz-CG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:47:59 -0500 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:58651) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyTG-0006sm-Io for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:47:58 -0500 Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 66B421000C4; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:47:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0D8D910001C; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:47:51 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1676393271; bh=wgoqWHQIGA9iAKlYC6ad0tLjS/+pA9uK/h1By2Lcvkk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=MdCB4ZwjIgo+05qp+Un9t8VAj+2TPosl0UBg1WyraHgAre6mCPD7YK1rP0dsFfm63 9d2h2Vr6d76ZPvWDbdzmN+o+8ntdh0xAkNMr1DoXdj9tJcUsT767Se1SfyyNRmmFen XvrDO1XdW1qF/Jn/ACmXXiDa1KPnCqBRQ8LV2UdcBbbpJLgVw3al4Uv49V/zzRg2el pg/u8BLH3vlGFo6EF59o52mxKzQsJ7vZmZmxGwh/7TEN/rOTbzpnCfk77N+KAFLknK V1Jf6RkwOPpk1GBTfUdHS24b//bDopMMqsUcYxxQ+wn1hUO4ShxJckDJZQwBhjecN2 M839ZBw6Pcwew== Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EEE6512086D; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:47:50 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Gregory Heytings Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: <0f053182b0be67f5117f@heytings.org> (Gregory Heytings's message of "Tue, 14 Feb 2023 16:00:35 +0000") Message-ID: References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <0f053182b0be67f5117f@heytings.org> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:47:36 -0500 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.027 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: Istvan Marko , Eli Zaretskii , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > You mean, the attached patch? Yes. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 11:50:48 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 16:50:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56831 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyW0-0006xa-Bp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:50:48 -0500 Received: from mail239c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.10.249]:45176 helo=mail56c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyVx-0006xQ-Vh for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:50:47 -0500 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1676393443; bh=a9foCaahLtuL4PYHDDra5CDWkdTzvraym17wC8Sp8H4=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=ljmPpIj/701saoXdI3XH1seSsNf5zU7h1SYi0cb0c2mCmNK0Y95LkSOzBKAoX82g7 fbtya9dqkIJeZKcEOQFYKgX7Nb6RE6vxvhuroOWHdliAIwMQgmf3Zzf3drFo/3xRxM dNmeR1kbHIkqpzLLD6K+k5LBEq3HS7TXgB56KbB4= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c188-150-171-209.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.209]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail56c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 31EGocCf040909; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 16:50:40 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.14\)) Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:50:38 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> To: Eli Zaretskii X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.14) X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudeifedgkeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecujffquffvqffrkfetpdfqfgfvpdfgpfggqdevhedtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjffevgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrthhtihgrshcugfhnghguvghgnohrugcuoehmrghtthhirghsvgesrggtmhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveekffdujefhkeehvdfgffeikefghfefvdekueffleegfeekueelhfejieefkefgnecukfhppedukeekrdduhedtrddujedurddvtdelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepudekkedrudehtddrudejuddrvddtledphhgvlhhopehsmhhtphgtlhhivghnthdrrghpphhlvgdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmrghtthhirghsvgesrggtmhdrohhrghdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohephedprhgtphhtthhopegvlhhiiiesghhnuhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehgrhgvghhorhihsehhvgihthhinhhgshdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehmohhnnhhivghrsehirhhordhumhhonhhtrhgvrghlrdgtrgdprhgtphhtthhopehmihdqvggsuhhgsheskhhishhmrghlrgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopeeiudehtdegseguvggssghughhsrdhgnhhurdhorhhg X-Origin-Country: SE X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, Gregory Heytings , Stefan Monnier , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) The patch is all right, I suppose, but it would be nice to do without = the extra cons. Maybe a new specpdl case is warranted? `save-excursion` = has one. By the way, doesn't the patch switch the restoration order of narrowing = and restriction, respectively? Maybe it doesn't matter? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 11:51:32 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 16:51:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56835 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyWh-0006yv-QI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:51:31 -0500 Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:56714) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyWf-0006yl-9P for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:51:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1676393488; bh=mL2vsNDIkQtvC/L/FDP04AJ2HknXHE9K6CXLHUf5lsk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=6LPhnej6QTolBVcpEuWPCDPm+7SHtYx1VddWOBsMeIoHnpp5RvTOgiDbnyWq+BwZb GaSINp/xzO37XeyY2fPYCXBYg3PuK5Tjr4F3V7IjEd4zqQyCZiWqXjdTxqgdEX2JOt BJLW1Pp8D6vGJY1q0kRlgRRhELDsWQih3zrgUcQ+eJcEjozIrxmBWtQ7AefBuxPnO8 JvhCKw6Z+26XfpPDtgUpTujMhBVngN+Hhcq7VN5nIr6Ks4c39ZAH/9I2rLyALL4zFZ pLwkMvF9+cjIVBm6BtPjefeMfVpEl0Ub9UhrTA50zT5z8ScGGt6XPoI7Gfn+4uEcTd 3nmcmfRnIAocA== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 16:51:27 +0000 From: Gregory Heytings To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0f053182b02cda731996@heytings.org> References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <0f053182b0be67f5117f@heytings.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: Istvan Marko , Eli Zaretskii , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) >> You mean, the attached patch? > > Yes. > Great, thanks again! Eli, OK to install? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 12:00:59 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 17:00:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56847 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyfr-0007Dp-5d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:00:59 -0500 Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:56736) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyfo-0007Dg-Vi for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:00:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1676394055; bh=jYOhWdycJ42yCNCx7nEnbLbm1AMBCLlJpK5xMZkhnXE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=f0ls4yEFPyMztjr/pIVK04EHvSifGdz28/bS2VJJ88D62uaNYjSgkqj9K6yt5T398 83HzhrHFz9ybZmo02de+5vFB673SDOXeV2JThvgS+Wb2i3R0Na8A6UEOMzbUHXTgfY DyhGkCATKgV9ckbXRlcRQy8jsq2jWskEG3cJPYk5m+MwYj0sfbQ9Grb8wRlaszD+D6 diXS1MHU0MD7YhUJXzYcaAJk2hda7kST9SAT3AqvwgrHxl9R3yuO6jZx4pGmJLM00u 8sZFXSao8pRIC/n6Y0ojBQ50AxuvD3uxgspXIPywcmaTwqE27P0vXXORwNIH4wGlAt oCgwn6B3IpeXw== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:00:55 +0000 From: Gregory Heytings To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Thanks for the review! > > The patch is all right, I suppose, but it would be nice to do without > the extra cons. Maybe a new specpdl case is warranted? `save-excursion` > has one. > That's a possible improvement, but I think it's not safe enough for Emacs 29. > > By the way, doesn't the patch switch the restoration order of narrowing > and restriction, respectively? Maybe it doesn't matter? > Hmmm, that's a good question! The evaluation order of parameters is unspecified in C, so actually the order could be switched or not, depending on what the compiler chooses to do. That being said, AFAICS it doesn't matter in this case, indeed. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 12:16:52 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 17:16:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56867 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyvD-0007bD-To for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:16:52 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51274) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyvC-0007b1-8P for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:16:50 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyv5-0004Wk-Dj; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:16:43 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=/c8yyXRglEZtMedoBVoC9JQJaEuIoMdTo1aEpJdNOXw=; b=U6iImPkC+n8c GC6AoEhIz0SsZA+phV3H6iPN15hlGaXWvZvsAksS+nityDeCymTq8m83ZDt2hbXpkp8Ndq0yMkmR5 14q+vhfPvOlS5/ZYn7z9sTqEBTPq2bfctND4NxMP88pj2NMnvouJjFV0y0waN+Btk7qsA0oN74USp 7wig6P/853u8mowC8yYhELwZPKWvfYxixD8abVmoqd88t0/h65uYHxYLYrrOdOgL7xyWr1x/7kHt5 AQZ4U/m+oTu6E3P6mW8iNuiq44NsDU1QF5xDuWba+IOhb1V3LxUFC9h5CW0p4iS5AYjBiM4GmiVTD v2lBmikJ+Kgk/KZkucwjBQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyv4-0002JM-Rg; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:16:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 19:16:21 +0200 Message-Id: <83fsb8cgm2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Gregory Heytings In-Reply-To: <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> (message from Gregory Heytings on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:00:55 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, mattiase@acm.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:00:55 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: Eli Zaretskii , mi-ebugs@kismala.com, > Stefan Monnier , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org > > > By the way, doesn't the patch switch the restoration order of narrowing > > and restriction, respectively? Maybe it doesn't matter? > > Hmmm, that's a good question! The evaluation order of parameters is > unspecified in C, so actually the order could be switched or not, > depending on what the compiler chooses to do. But you could rewrite the code so that the parameters are evaluated one after the other, and only after that call Fcons. The compiler could still change the order, but that would be less probable. > That being said, AFAICS it doesn't matter in this case, indeed. It is IME better to write code that doesn't trigger such questions to begin with. > Eli, OK to install? With the change of order per the above, yes. Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 12:21:39 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 17:21:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56871 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyzq-0007ib-MC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:21:39 -0500 Received: from mail204c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.10.214]:44862 helo=mail193c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRyzn-0007iQ-Mw for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:21:36 -0500 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1676395293; bh=lKc1/UijEM7wMoO8O9LS3rWNpRywsyWaxLcM0ab/QFo=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=JKMN7Ugsl4ytzzmXW0wI/YsmOrTP2GTgSXHM1WVJIHG61ygtsduMe6FcLl/Mc8llS 3GDs5C2ff1I/AFX6+4nowZ+TmpbbdhUWVz0SBgDWNMJcY4ohpkv9JVdBQDUYUjr6Rm 8MHi62sCL3ewVLXPYJHhV51W7eWxb8C6/fY3paVI= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c188-150-171-209.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.209]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail193c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 31EHLSst084966; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:21:30 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.14\)) Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 18:21:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <14648C4B-2346-4895-8534-CA4CD9637FD2@acm.org> References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> To: Gregory Heytings X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.14) X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudeifedgleduucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecujffquffvqffrkfetpdfqfgfvpdfgpfggqdevhedtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjffevgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrthhtihgrshcugfhnghguvghgnohrugcuoehmrghtthhirghsvgesrggtmhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveekffdujefhkeehvdfgffeikefghfefvdekueffleegfeekueelhfejieefkefgnecukfhppedukeekrdduhedtrddujedurddvtdelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepudekkedrudehtddrudejuddrvddtledphhgvlhhopehsmhhtphgtlhhivghnthdrrghpphhlvgdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmrghtthhirghsvgesrggtmhdrohhrghdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohephedprhgtphhtthhopehgrhgvghhorhihsehhvgihthhinhhgshdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopegvlhhiiiesghhnuhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehmihdqvggsuhhgsheskhhishhmrghlrgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehmohhnnhhivghrsehirhhordhumhhonhhtrhgvrghlrdgtrgdprhgtphhtthhopeeiudehtdegseguvggssghughhsrdhgnhhurdhorhhg X-Origin-Country: SE X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 14 feb. 2023 kl. 18.00 skrev Gregory Heytings : >> By the way, doesn't the patch switch the restoration order of = narrowing and restriction, respectively? Maybe it doesn't matter? >>=20 >=20 > Hmmm, that's a good question! The evaluation order of parameters is = unspecified in C, so actually the order could be switched or not, = depending on what the compiler chooses to do. Yes, the saving order is undefined but the restoring order seems = well-defined. It currently restores narrowing locks first, then the = restriction, but your patch flips the order. Please at least make the saving order well-defined, preferably in the = reverse order of restoration for symmetry. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 12:36:21 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 17:36:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56889 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRzE5-00085R-FZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:36:21 -0500 Received: from imarko.xen.prgmr.com ([71.19.158.228]:36492) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRzE3-00085D-3a for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:36:19 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=zsu.kismala.com) by imarko.xen.prgmr.com with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1pRzDx-0006FC-45; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:36:13 -0800 From: Istvan Marko To: Gregory Heytings , Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: <0f053182b0be67f5117f@heytings.org> References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <0f053182b0be67f5117f@heytings.org> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:36:12 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: Istvan Marko , Eli Zaretskii , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) I've tested with Gregory's second patch on top of current emacs-29 and it avoids the crash with my original test case. -- Istvan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 15:33:03 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 20:33:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57114 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS1z5-0002vW-G5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:33:03 -0500 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:59138) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS1z4-0002v4-La for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:33:03 -0500 Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 483CB10002F; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:32:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B6A5E10001C; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:32:54 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1676406774; bh=J9BRuXuIGzbAjygyxEvXOx2f54W86hHop/XoiZ3ZUkY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=n6R+77iP3EyPmc2FyY3xnLqtvP4W3lL9nDziS2rYY6tgOUcwcfWjqBl9DEee1R72v Pn58ZCOk8Cog6eQ0WPbFp7e3dB5vyIzw3CPpXa+A5u7P2lt18uG09maX6CCk7WrToY aib8GOizaq5V+WSNcGaxQr9QdibSH5Shm/yPwsQzp4pg2gBuajOYTS9LInNLsECWnv gAGZm8p1Tk8t4PKDiCE9hSbFgFwKmMsZLoEpBDf5VgEhYEMVwuwtFCa3T+dCR/gdId lzXT6w4GeWAsFE36r3lPoH5uNcBN8bKyfwwSKW3LMcEfKoJGpY+gxwC85D0GMzqHjf WUhFyy8drP7ng== Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A60F12305D; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:32:54 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: Gregory Heytings Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> (Gregory Heytings's message of "Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:00:55 +0000") Message-ID: References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:32:54 -0500 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.027 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd?= , Eli Zaretskii , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) >> By the way, doesn't the patch switch the restoration order of narrowing >> and restriction, respectively? Maybe it doesn't matter? > Hmmm, that's a good question! The evaluation order of parameters is > unspecified in C, The problem is not in the evaluation order of params in `save_restriction_save` (this order doesn't matter because the code is pure), it's in `+save_restriction_restore`. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 15:44:53 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 20:44:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57130 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2AT-0003EM-M5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:44:52 -0500 Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:56998) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2AS-0003EE-8V for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:44:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1676407487; bh=a1wu8LAkTmrDMYjmQoOE4+0pUiFhZ1x8k46HFLjU4gA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=ZXEu+Zd4CWJBw2wZXvRt8RR0mqpjaSVsU4C5WKDRa2ZNSxtYkra1/dwciO0XAn6Ry ffhHsnURmFoJCcZ9cpxd+2Ukmvr5itVsXPsymovS13qOGeQWxAsuNJNHozPLsQKN3H AGTlMFHZVw+IFP00FFg4AglsBn4l3bTViM3vw0GK4aflzRk+a3EvroZdAawVizdZm4 tqdQPPai6v1OotVHPpDVIf02MDh4keXbevz4+5b2zEnk5G4u92xEu/txIq4ljRXuRL vh1nhsklz0ET9m7g1WT7TmwEDdN1IDSD/58E+1QHCtzSHbLWIiq0CO8nfrLhASZOr1 RnPrVhD5nUrFA== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:44:46 +0000 From: Gregory Heytings To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: <83fsb8cgm2.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: <0f053182b06c8bc5bbbb@heytings.org> References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> <83fsb8cgm2.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, mattiase@acm.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) >> Hmmm, that's a good question! The evaluation order of parameters is >> unspecified in C, so actually the order could be switched or not, >> depending on what the compiler chooses to do. > > But you could rewrite the code so that the parameters are evaluated one > after the other, and only after that call Fcons. The compiler could > still change the order, but that would be less probable. > Agreed. >> That being said, AFAICS it doesn't matter in this case, indeed. > > It is IME better to write code that doesn't trigger such questions to > begin with. > Agreed again. >> Eli, OK to install? > > With the change of order per the above, yes. > Now done. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 15:46:17 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 20:46:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57134 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Bp-0003HR-4d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:46:17 -0500 Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:57016) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2Bn-0003HH-HJ for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:46:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1676407570; bh=gK6H+JIk3qmjrMaDj2Jup9ngK1wcQas8bbuI/e2u/sc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=lmn4R9xNPerjuB64FoyAW76+I5ZEAyeTPOYSvYBtIW27DisNylvhVIt4+m8x1FngF wsAT2QucFTrNK5dVfNa08FR5/aWIx3GH2f/VVSxyj6dEztzP9sPQ9CmDpiSdRj9nyp bGyn+SukHCZ7VGOolmoaRIDvUFY/6P9h60Y3dD/3L9b/OvKDglOD1Y3PyvEvHbncno cxzxPkMjo29tr9DSQ6QUq2bcUgpBnfqOjkkvktuN8852XVVWmnj+nWoayzwEmrsFD3 744xxS8D8q2PFfBqfOS2a6+JRMtEzz+RtG5FvL77XwD9SmbMZ2gtK7GTo2NSY5bEAh Lmb7k7vTTjDAA== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:46:10 +0000 From: Gregory Heytings To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: <14648C4B-2346-4895-8534-CA4CD9637FD2@acm.org> Message-ID: <0f053182b01ca92048da@heytings.org> References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> <14648C4B-2346-4895-8534-CA4CD9637FD2@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) >>> By the way, doesn't the patch switch the restoration order of >>> narrowing and restriction, respectively? Maybe it doesn't matter? >> >> Hmmm, that's a good question! The evaluation order of parameters is >> unspecified in C, so actually the order could be switched or not, >> depending on what the compiler chooses to do. > > Yes, the saving order is undefined but the restoring order seems > well-defined. It currently restores narrowing locks first, then the > restriction, but your patch flips the order. > Indeed, I misunderstood what you said above, now I got it! > > Please at least make the saving order well-defined, preferably in the > reverse order of restoration for symmetry. > I did that. Thanks again for your review/feedback. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 14 15:47:31 2023 Received: (at 61504) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2023 20:47:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57138 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2D5-0003JS-8f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:47:31 -0500 Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:57030) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pS2D3-0003JJ-OB for 61504@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:47:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1676407649; bh=ZUEMaqndphBrbJItF6dmwO67Q1WcIho9ttTf9i0AfJA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=XOtU9UokOoiY/xy8uoSrSrqWxBobc9EwZ3KyRLNHf9lgojgrJzTlnYJLxWxD4TLJN IvN+cKNeZ9fJF31BaLWc8M93rayU9uiWQ3E6LbctYyor3HocPGv97Wyl93rhb262s7 SipfgfxeAqXnPiBvt7XeKJQ7A9xLz0+9k2fDjD523BdCcg+oMyMmpvPm+fs92LaVow tfgzQDbaBATY1+fOcgb+3zPg5WDz6KmWm8rrPztJ0ozLlnnyT0Nz6GtDW3T2ff5oqm LanRgeAKmoyzvrpQJPme1DeAgytL/tHTkEgk2gIgeSkrJ2ddX8/tuazXRPlv4nVuEP mS/SbyY9NJWMA== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:47:28 +0000 From: Gregory Heytings To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0f053182b0852c07b095@heytings.org> References: <0f053182b047f142abcf@heytings.org> <833578e5o1.fsf@gnu.org> <0f053182b0078c2103a9@heytings.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61504 Cc: mi-ebugs@kismala.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= , Eli Zaretskii , 61504@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) >>> By the way, doesn't the patch switch the restoration order of >>> narrowing and restriction, respectively? Maybe it doesn't matter? >> >> Hmmm, that's a good question! The evaluation order of parameters is >> unspecified in C, > > The problem is not in the evaluation order of params in > `save_restriction_save` (this order doesn't matter because the code is > pure), it's in `save_restriction_restore`. > Indeed, I initially misunderstood what Mattias said, but after reading it again I got it. This is now fixed. Thanks!