bug#61504: 29.0.60; executing byte-code from previous build causes SIGSEGV crash

[Stefan Monnier]

> Eli, what do you think of the attached patch?  It restores the 'unbind 1' at
> the end of save-restriction, and puts the two data elements into a cons
> instead of pushing them separately.  (Of course this passes make and make
> check, with and without native compilation.)

Looks right to me.
Some comments below.


        Stefan


> @@ -940,10 +940,9 @@ #define DEFINE(name, value) [name] = &&insn_ ## name,
>         }
>  
>       CASE (Bsave_restriction):
> -       record_unwind_protect (save_restriction_restore,
> -                              save_restriction_save ());
> -       record_unwind_protect (narrowing_locks_restore,
> -                              narrowing_locks_save ());
> +       record_unwind_protect (save_restriction_and_narrowing_locks_restore,
> +                              Fcons (save_restriction_save (),
> +                                     narrowing_locks_save ()));
>         NEXT;

Shouldn't the value returned by `save_restriction_save` include the
narrowing locks already?

IOW rather than changing this `bytecode.c` code, the locks handling
should be "hidden" inside `save_restriction_restore` and
`save_restriction_save`, don't you think?


        Stefan