GNU bug report logs - #77924
31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation

Previous Next

Full log

Message #203 received at 77924 <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, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 77924 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 stefankangas <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 09:20:55 +0200

Sent from my iPhone

> On 25. Apr 2025, at 09:01, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
>>  77924 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  stefankangas <at> gmail.com
>> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 21:53:05 +0200
>> 
>> Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> I think what we should do is mimic FOR_EACH_TAIL, and use
>>> FOR_EACH_MARKER like this:
>>> 
>>> struct Lisp_Marker *m;
>>> FOR_EACH_MARKER (b, m)
>>>  {
>>>    /* do something with m */
>>>  }
>> 
>> We need an if somewhere for the MARKERP, don't we?
> 
> Why is that needed, btw?  Can't we change the representation and/or
> the functions involved to avoid the need for such a test?

When markers are freed their entry in the market vector no longer contains a marker reference. 

Previous Next

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