GNU bug report logs - #78590
31.0.50; print_object calls strout unsafely

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 78590 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#78590: 31.0.50; print_object calls strout unsafely
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 13:44:32 +0000

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

>> Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 18:46:24 +0000
>> From: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>
>> Cc: 78590 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>
>> "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>    else
>>      {
>> -      /* Otherwise, string may be relocated by printing one char.
>> -	 So re-fetch the string address for each character.  */
>> -      ptrdiff_t i;
>> -      ptrdiff_t size = SCHARS (string);
>> -      ptrdiff_t size_byte = SBYTES (string);
>> -      if (size == size_byte)
>> -	for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
>> -	  printchar (SREF (string, i), printcharfun);
>> -      else
>> -	for (i = 0; i < size_byte; )
>> -	  {
>> -	    /* Here, we must convert each multi-byte form to the
>> -	       corresponding character code before handing it to PRINTCHAR.  */
>> -	    int len, ch = string_char_and_length (SDATA (string) + i, &len);
>> -	    printchar (ch, printcharfun);
>> -	    i += len;
>> -	  }
>> +      /* printcharfun is a Lisp function.  */
>> +      Fmapc (printcharfun, string);
>
> What is the rationale for calling Fmapc here?  Doesn't it do in this
> case what the original code did, but at a price of two additional
> levels of function calls?  IOW, why did you want to get rid of the
> original code above?

Let's leave out that hunk for now?  We can replace it by Fmapc when
Fmapc is fixed for bug#75845.  I see calling mapc on a record crashes
now, so I'll try to come up with an updated patch for bug#75845 that
fixes both that issue and the self-modification thing.

Pip

Previous Next

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