GNU bug report logs - #79116
31.0.50; Crash on IGC build

Previous Next

Full log

Message #92 received at 79116 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Helmut Eller <eller.helmut <at> gmail.com>
Cc: gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com, spd <at> toadstyle.org, pipcet <at> protonmail.com,
 79116 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#79116: 31.0.50; Crash on IGC build
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 17:00:20 +0300

> From: Helmut Eller <eller.helmut <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com,  spd <at> toadstyle.org,  pipcet <at> protonmail.com,
>   79116 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 15:31:16 +0200
> 
> On Fri, Aug 01 2025, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >> Objects that allocated on the GC heap and automatically freed are
> >> GC-managed.
> >
> > That answers the first question I asked, but not the second one, which
> > is what is important in practice.
> 
> Then I don't know the answer.

I think we will have to define these indications.  Or at least we
should try.  It's important for future maintenance.

> >> > My anecdotal evidence from running the igc branch is unambiguous: it
> >> > is significantly less "stuttering" than the master branch.
> >> 
> >> Is that with gc-cons-percentage = 0.1?
> >
> > I compare "emacs -Q", so yes.
> 
> With gc-cons-percentage = 0.1 the GC runs very often.  Bigger values
> would likely have better performance.

Which might mean our default value is too low.

Previous Next

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