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

[Gregory Heytings]

> Looks right to me.

Many thanks for your review!

> > @@ -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?

You mean, the attached patch?  That's probably even better, indeed. 
(Again it passes make and make check, with and without native 
compilation.)

Improve-backward-compatibility-of-save-restriction.patch
Description: Text Data