bug#34655: 26.1.92; Segfault in module with --module-assertions

[Eli Zaretskii]

> > I will CC Stefan, who committed 3eb93c07f7a60ac9ce8a16f10c3afd5a3a31243a.
> >
> > I'm not sure we should revert that; we could instead add GC protection
> > for those parts that need it.
> 
> Yes, that's what reverting that commit does :-)

AFAIU, it does much more.  Stefan intended for the conservative stack
marking to do the job, so maybe there's a little more that should be
done to get there.  Or maybe Stefan didn't consider some important
factor(s).  In either case, I'd like to hear his POV on this before we
decide how to proceed.

> We need to mark the objects in all cases, not just when module
> assertions are enabled.

If we get stack marking to work, we won't need to mark objects
explicitly.

> Note that both the designer of the module API (Daniel) and I as one of
> its main implementers disagree with commit
> 3eb93c07f7a60ac9ce8a16f10c3afd5a3a31243a.

OK, but I think Stefan's opinion is not less important.

> I've already confirmed that reverting commit
> 3eb93c07f7a60ac9ce8a16f10c3afd5a3a31243a fixes bug#31238, and I can
> try it with this bug as well.

Please do, it's important to know that, I think.

Thanks.