[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Apr 2025 10:45:23 +0300 |
> From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 09:20:55 +0200
> Cc: pipcet@protonmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 77924@debbugs.gnu.org,
> stefankangas@gmail.com
>
>
> > On 25. Apr 2025, at 09:01, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,
> >> 77924@debbugs.gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com
> >> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 21:53:05 +0200
> >>
> >> Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> I think what we should do is mimic FOR_EACH_TAIL, and use
> >>> FOR_EACH_MARKER like this:
> >>>
> >>> struct Lisp_Marker *m;
> >>> FOR_EACH_MARKER (b, m)
> >>> {
> >>> /* do something with m */
> >>> }
> >>
> >> We need an if somewhere for the MARKERP, don't we?
> >
> > Why is that needed, btw? Can't we change the representation and/or
> > the functions involved to avoid the need for such a test?
>
> When markers are freed their entry in the market vector no longer contains a
> marker reference.
I understand, but why does this need to be tested inside the loop?
Can't the loop itself know how many markers are in the vector, and
stop when they are exhausted?
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, (continued)
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Eli Zaretskii, 2025/04/24
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Eli Zaretskii, 2025/04/24
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Gerd Möllmann, 2025/04/24
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Pip Cet, 2025/04/24
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Gerd Möllmann, 2025/04/24
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Eli Zaretskii, 2025/04/25
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Gerd Möllmann, 2025/04/25
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Gerd Möllmann, 2025/04/25
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Eli Zaretskii, 2025/04/25
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Gerd Möllmann, 2025/04/25
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Eli Zaretskii, 2025/04/25
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Gerd Möllmann, 2025/04/25
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Eli Zaretskii, 2025/04/25
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Eli Zaretskii, 2025/04/25
- Message not available
- bug#77924: text-index (was: bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation), Ihor Radchenko, 2025/04/27
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Gerd Möllmann, 2025/04/30
- bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation, Stefan Monnier, 2025/04/25