Subject: bug#72802: 31.0.50; Crash in (equal sub-char-table-a sub-char-table-b)

From: Pip Cet <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 15:15:14 +0000

"Eli Zaretskii" <[email-masked]> writes:

>> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 14:11:17 +0000
>> From:  Pip Cet via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
>>  the Swiss army knife of text editors" <[email-masked]>
>>
>> Pip Cet <[email-masked]> writes:
>> > The code in internal_equal compares sub-char-tables incorrectly
>>
>> This patch should fix things for the release branch:
>
> I don't see a reason to install this on the release branch now.

Your call.

> Not even on master, I think, unless we see a bug related to it that is not
> caused by a specially-concocted Lisp program or GDB command.

It's a clear bug, whether or not the Lisp programs that cause it are
"specially-concocted" (what's that supposed to mean, anyway?  We can't
just delay fixing what are clearly bugs until they pop up on random
users' machines!)

So I think it's important to fix this soon (not "now") on the master
branch.

> If this is required for the no-pure-space branch, I think you should
> install this on that branch.  Then it will be merged together with the
> branch.

It's not, it just popped up during work on that branch.

> If you see some urgent need to fix this ASAP on master, please tell
> why you think so.

Not "ASAP", and not "urgent", no.  We certainly can take the time to
address your comments and fix up things.

>> +	    /* Bug#72802.  See 'mark_char_table' in alloc.c.  */
>> +	    if (SUB_CHAR_TABLE_P (o1))
>> +	      {
>> +		i = SUB_CHAR_TABLE_OFFSET;
>> +		if (XSUB_CHAR_TABLE (o1)->depth !=
>> +		    XSUB_CHAR_TABLE (o2)->depth)
>> +		  return false;
>> +		if (XSUB_CHAR_TABLE (o1)->min_char !=
>> +		    XSUB_CHAR_TABLE (o2)->min_char)
>> +		  return false;
>> +	      }
>
> I looked at mark_char_table, trying to understand what the above
> comments wants to say, and couldn't.  So I think the comment should
> be improved, so that it would be more clear what it wants to say.

As you will have seen, then, we compare the same "vector" elements in
internal_equal as are marked in mark_char_table, but I agree the comment
(and the code) can be improved, and will try to do that.

> Also, please move the assignment of SUB_CHAR_TABLE_OFFSET to i to
> after the two early 'return's.

Gladly.

>> For the master branch, I think the right thing to do is to turn the
>> first two, non-Lisp members of Lisp_Sub_Char_Table ('depth' and
>> 'min_char') into 'Lisp_Object's.  Then we can simplify the code and
>> compare sub char tables as we do ordinary vectors, at the cost of eight
>> bytes of extra storage per sub char table on machines with 64-bit
>> EMACS_INTs.
>
> I'm not sure we want to pay this cost.  What bothers me is mainly the
> run-time cost of extracting integers from Lisp objects.

That might be noticeable on 32-bit machines with EMACS_WIDE_INT, I
suppose, or on very old machines where memory isn't so much slower than
register manipulation.

> char-table is
> supposed to be very efficient, both memory-wise and CPU-wise, and I
> think the performance here trumps simplicity.

How about using an "ordinary" pseudovector with its non-Lisp elements at
the end?

>> BTW, I'm surprised this code returns nil; I think that should be
>> documented.
>>
>> (setq a (make-char-table nil))
>> (setq b (make-char-table nil))
>> (aset a 1 nil)
>> (dotimes (i (max-char))
>>   (unless (equal (aref a i) (aref b i))
>>     (error "i = %S" i)))
>> (equal a b)
>
> Why are you surprised?  Setting a single cell of a char-table changes
> its structure, usually in quite a radical way.  'aref' does some very
> special things for char-tables; the semantics of accessing an element
> of a vector is only correct superficially, not in the details.

Indeed, and I expected (and still expect) 'equal' to ignore such
details.

> The internals of a char-table are not really documented in the ELisp
> manual; the description there is mostly phenomenological, without any
> details.

I don't think 'equal' behavior is part of those "internals", and it
certainly isn't a detail.  Given the great trouble we're going to to
make 'equal' work on char tables at all, I'm still surprised we didn't
actually make it work the way it does on vectors.

> If you want to document the internals, I think the proper

Not the internals, just how 'equal' works.

Pip