bug#71012: 30.0.50; tree-sitter crash

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:26:30 -0700
> Cc: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <basil@contovou.net>,
>  71012@debbugs.gnu.org,
>  Helmut Eller <eller.helmut@gmail.com>
> 
> > On Jul 24, 2024, at 10:27 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <basil@contovou.net>
> >> Cc: casouri@gmail.com,  71012@debbugs.gnu.org,  eller.helmut@gmail.com
> >> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 01:32:01 +0200
> >> 
> >> Eli Zaretskii [2024-07-24 19:31 +0300] wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> Cc: 71012@debbugs.gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com
> >>>> From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <basil@contovou.net>
> >>>> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:57:53 +0200
> >>>> 
> >>>> Ping: thoughts on whether this is an issue?
> >>> 
> >>> Thoughts about what? what is deemed to be a problem in this case?
> >> 
> >> That each call to treesit-parse-string now allocates a new internal
> >> buffer which is not automatically GCed.
> >> 
> >> If this cannot be avoided, I think the docs should at least warn that
> >> it's the caller's responsibility to kill the return node's buffer when
> >> finished with it.
> > 
> > If the buffers aren't killed by the code, it's indeed an issue that
> > needs to be solved.  At the time I suggested that the node's buffer is
> > killed when the node is GC'ed or deleted -- have this not been done?
> 
> No. I think it’s best to implement treesit-parse-string in C with 
> ts_parse_string now. That way we don’t need to worry about the temp buffer.

That'd be fine as well, yes.