[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code |
Date: |
21 Aug 2004 21:05:40 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
> As far as I can tell, all the cases in Fbyte_code that call
> record_unwind_protect should protect against GC like the
> Bunwind_protect case. I don't know why we missed that originally.
> The comment is wrong: record_unwind_protect cannot GC.
> So I think the right change is to delete the gc protect
> stuff from the Bunwind_protect case.
> Stefan was the last one to change that code. Maybe the old
> record_unwind_protect could GC in the past, but not now. Stefan, is
> that what happened?
Actually, this particular change (to add the GC thingy and the comment)
comes from Gerd:
revision 1.54
date: 2000/11/21 16:47:04; author: gerd; state: Exp; lines: +6 -0
(Fbyte_code) <Bvarbind, Bunwind_protect>: Add
BEFORE/AFTER_POTENTIAL_GC.
The comment for Bvarbind is a bit more explicit and mentions that it's
because the code can call Fsignal which itself can GC. I think the reason
why it can GC is because of Vsignal_hook_function (used by edebug).
Stefan
- missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Dave Love, 2004/08/20
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Richard Stallman, 2004/08/21
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Richard Stallman, 2004/08/22
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Stefan Monnier, 2004/08/22
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Dave Love, 2004/08/23
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Richard Stallman, 2004/08/24
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Stefan Monnier, 2004/08/24
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Richard Stallman, 2004/08/25
- Re: missing GC protection in Fbyte_code, Dave Love, 2004/08/23