[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c
From: |
Gerd Möllmann |
Subject: |
bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c |
Date: |
Sun, 01 Dec 2024 16:18:31 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com> writes:
> Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com> writes:
>>>> Yes, exactly, json.c. First thing I saw when searching for xfree
>>>>
>>>> static void
>>>> json_parser_done (void *parser)
>>>> {
>>>> struct json_parser *p = (struct json_parser *) parser;
>>>> if (p->object_workspace != p->internal_object_workspace)
>>>> xfree (p->object_workspace);
>>>>
>>>> That at least needs an explanation. I would have expected it to be
>>>> allocated as root.
>>>
>>> Well, the explanation is this comment:
>>>
>>> /* Lisp_Objects are collected in this area during object/array
>>> parsing. To avoid allocations, initially
>>> internal_object_workspace is used. If it runs out of space then
>>> we switch to allocated space. Important note: with this design,
>>> GC must not run during JSON parsing, otherwise Lisp_Objects in
>>> the workspace may get incorrectly collected. */
>>
>> That explains it, indeed :-(.
>
> Just to be clear, I think the mixed heap/stack allocation is the right
> thing to do here, but we need to let both garbage collectors know about
> the Lisp_Objects we allocated.
>
> I think the best way to do that is to use a Lisp_Vector when we run out
> of stack space. That way, we don't have to worry about forgetting to GC
> it, and we can use standard functions rather than rolling our own.
Yeah, I'd prefer using Lisp_Vectors too, and it was actually implemented
at some point, but removed again, see
https://yhetil.org/emacs-devel/87edc1rzig.fsf@gmail.com/
I vaguely remember a longer thread about GC in json.c at the time. Could
be that that was before igc became a realistic possibility, don't
remember.
And yes, I've forgotten about it, and should actually have fixed this
long ago :-).
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Pip Cet, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Gerd Möllmann, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Gerd Möllmann, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Pip Cet, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Gerd Möllmann, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Pip Cet, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Gerd Möllmann, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Pip Cet, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c,
Gerd Möllmann <=
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Pip Cet, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Geza Herman, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Gerd Möllmann, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Pip Cet, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Geza Herman, 2024/12/04
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Óscar Fuentes, 2024/12/22
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Óscar Fuentes, 2024/12/01
- bug#74547: 31.0.50; igc: assertion failed in buffer.c, Gerd Möllmann, 2024/12/01