Re: Changes that should go into version 24.4

[Daniel Colascione]

On 03/22/2014 02:08 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:57:03 -0700
>> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
>>
>> It doesn't make sense that we'd fault accessing a stack slot on an
>> active frame: doing so might corrupt something later, sure, but that
>> stack location is valid and touching it isn't going to cause an
>> immediate SIGSEGV.
> 
> Crashes in mark_object usually have nothing to do with accessing a
> stack slot per se.  mark_object looks at the object type, and then
> extracts a pointer to a C structure from it, and proceeds treating
> that pointer as a valid pointer to a valid structure of that type.  If
> pointer it extracts is invalid, or points to something that is not a C
> struct of the type mark_object expects, we will segfault trying to
> interpret those.
> 

Ah, yes. I was reading the message about the crash occurring "when
mark_stack calls mark_memory". mark_object makes a lot more sense. (I
read through the rest of the thread, but must have decoded "mark_object"
as "mark_memory" based on the earlier message and the most recent
message.) Thanks.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature