GNU bug report logs - #75322
SAFE_ALLOCA assumed to root Lisp_Objects/SSDATA(string)

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: pipcet <at> protonmail.com, 75322 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#75322: SAFE_ALLOCA assumed to root Lisp_Objects/SSDATA(string)
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2025 11:30:11 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> Cc: 75322 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2025 07:59:32 +0100
>> 
>> Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Just want to add that all SAFE_NALLOC uses should be checked in
>> > scratch/igc. For example, set_overlays_multibyte uses it to store
>> > itree_node *, and itree_node is in MPS.
>> >
>> > I think I'll just make it allocate a root in my Emacs. That's the least
>> > work.
>> 
>> Please find attached what I'm using now in my Emacs, in addition to your
>> xstrdup commit.
>
> These two are alternatives, right?  IOW, we should use one or the
> other in each specific case, is that correct?

If you mean the two patches I sent with "these two", then no. I prefer
using SAFE_ALLOCA_LISP because that introduces an exact root.

If "these two" means xstrdup and my SAFE_NALLOCA change, then yes, kind
of. It doesn't harm to do both, but it's not strictly necessary to do
xstrdup if the SAFE_NALLOCA change is in. The other way round is not
true, i.e. having the xstrdup change fixes only 1 case.

Previous Next

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