[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Sep 2023 22:36:18 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
> make_process), although I had to use a value produced by make_uninit_string:
> apparently simply storing a char* field inside a managed structure creates
> problems for the GC and early segfaults. Anyway, the result was slightly
That should depend on *where* you put that field. Basically, it has to
come after:
/* The thread a process is linked to, or nil for any thread. */
Lisp_Object thread;
/* After this point, there are no Lisp_Objects. */
since all the words up to that point will be traced by the GC (and
assumed to be Lisp_Object fields). But of course, if you created the
buffer with `make_uninit_string` then it'll be inside the Lisp heap and
so it'll be reclaimed if the GC doesn't find any reference to it.
Stefan
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, (continued)
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/13
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/13
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/13
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/13
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/14
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/15
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/16
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/19
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/20
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/20
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Message not available
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/21