[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Some issues with the tree-sitter branch
From: |
Yuan Fu |
Subject: |
Re: Some issues with the tree-sitter branch |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Oct 2022 21:53:06 -0700 |
> On Oct 16, 2022, at 6:32 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> I noticed several minor issues with the branch while reading the code:
>
> . Several places assign EMACS_INT values to uint32_t variables with
> an explicit range check (and error signal in case of overflow).
I think you meant the lack of a range check? Like mentioned here:
+ /* FIXME: We should signal an error below if START_BYTE
+ etc. overflow the 32-bit unsigned data type. */
I added buffer size check at parser creation time, and used casts to uint32_t
liberally, assuming the values never overflows and, so we don’t need to handle
the error at a million places. But I should have added checks in ts_after_chang
and other places where buffer size could change. I’ll add checks in
ts_after_change and other places, and if the argumetns overflows uint32, it
will set a flag (say, buffer_too_large) in the parser object, and next time any
lisp function tries to use that parser, an buffer-too-large error will be
signaled. WDYT?
> . Several functions produce Lisp_Object results by reference, and
> callers pass to them pointers to Lisp_Object variables. Our style
> prefers returning a Lisp_Object value through the return value,
> like this:
>
> Lisp_Object some_var = some_func (...);
>
> When a function produces a single value, I think the above is
> preferable.
Got it.
> . There's a call to malloc in Ftreesit_parser_set_included_ranges
> which doesn't check the return value of malloc, and doesn't signal
> memory-full error when malloc fails (that function should perhaps
> use SAFE_ALLOCA).
I’ll fix that.
>
> In addition, the style of treesit.c (indentation etc.) is not exactly
> ours (but this can be fixed later).
>
> Thank you for your work on this important feature.
Thank you!
I see that you fixed them, I’ll keep those in mind in the future. That’s a lot
of lines you need to change, sorry about that :-(
Yuan
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, (continued)
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, Daniel Martín, 2022/10/16
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, Yuan Fu, 2022/10/17
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, Jostein Kjønigsen, 2022/10/17
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, Yuan Fu, 2022/10/17
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/17
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, Yuan Fu, 2022/10/17
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/17
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, Stephen Leake, 2022/10/17
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/17
- Re: tree-sitter: Paths used for loading of language definitions, Yuan Fu, 2022/10/17
Re: Some issues with the tree-sitter branch,
Yuan Fu <=
Re: Some issues with the tree-sitter branch, Yuan Fu, 2022/10/17