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

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:21:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Full log


Message #80 received at 75322 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

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: Re: bug#75322: SAFE_ALLOCA assumed to root Lisp_Objects/SSDATA(string)
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 20:24:58 +0100
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: pipcet <at> protonmail.com,  75322 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 19:35:04 +0100
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > We are still arguing whether GC moves Lisp strings and what exactly
>> > does that mean. We still don't understand well enough what, if
>> > anything, are the problems with SAFE_ALLOCA and its ilk. 
>> 
>> I can't believe you say that. We talked about why xmalloc'd memory
>> has to be a root if it contains references. SAFE_NALLOCA uses xnmalloc.
>> Safe_ALLOCA_LISP does things differently.
>
> Sorry, I don't have a clear idea what that means.  When can we use
> SAFE_NALLOCA and friends? when can we or must we use SAFE_ALLOCA_LISP?
> What are the considerations? etc. etc.

I tried to explain that in igc.org, e.g. what roots are, or malloc in
one section. That's the best I can come up with.




This bug report was last modified 243 days ago.

Previous Next


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