Re: Not protecting Lisp objects from GC

[Pip Cet]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:18:22 +0000
>> From: Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>, 
>> emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>
>> About the patch:
>>
>> I proposed these two patches as a minimal fix:
>> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=75521#19
>> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=75521#88
>
> Yes, I think we should use those two, thanks.

Great, hoping it'll happen soon then.  I hope Stefan Kangas and Gerd
agree.  (But see below about the "which branch" question).

>> IIUC, the compromise is meant to apply to this one specific problem
>> only.
>
> Yes, that's the intent.

Good. If a situation like this happens again, hopefully we will have an
example of how it worked in this case, and can improve it or do
something totally different.

> But if we install this on the igc branch, there's no need to do
> anything in steps 2 to 4, as the change will wind up on master when we
> merge the branch.

I'm not sure which patch you're planning to install on feature/igc;
maybe you should just push what you think would be the best equivalent
of Stefan's suggestion here.

Worst case, reverting two commits isn't much harder than reverting just
one (my personal workflow often involves long commit stretches by that
Pip guy who doesn't know what he's doing).

> I hope that this could make everyone happy, and let us get back to our
> regularly scheduled hacking.

>From my POV, that would be great.

Pip