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

[Philipp Stephani]

Am Do., 21. März 2019 um 19:28 Uhr schrieb Philipp Stephani
<p.stephani2@gmail.com>:
>
> Am Do., 21. März 2019 um 18:00 Uhr schrieb Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:
> >
> > > From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:11:41 +0100
> > > Cc: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie>, 34655@debbugs.gnu.org
> > >
> > > I haven't checked everything in detail, but my impression is that this
> > > is rather another instance of bug#31238. Fixing this only when module
> > > assertions are enabled will probably not fix anything, but rather mask
> > > issues. Reverting commit 3eb93c07f7a60ac9ce8a16f10c3afd5a3a31243a is
> > > still the right approach here. Can you please hold off a bit? I've
> > > almost completed the revert, but haven't pushed it yet. Once that's in
> > > we can check whether it also fixes this issue.
> >
> > 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 :-)
> We need to mark the objects in all cases, not just when module
> assertions are enabled.
> Note that both the designer of the module API (Daniel) and I as one of
> its main implementers disagree with commit
> 3eb93c07f7a60ac9ce8a16f10c3afd5a3a31243a. I'm happy to discuss
> alternatives, but for now we should revert it and discuss the
> alternatives *before* implementing them. I've already confirmed that
> reverting commit 3eb93c07f7a60ac9ce8a16f10c3afd5a3a31243a fixes
> bug#31238, and I can try it with this bug as well.

I wasn't able to reproduce bug#34655 myself (these things tend to be
rather flaky), but I've now reverted commit
3eb93c07f7a60ac9ce8a16f10c3afd5a3a31243a, and at least bug#31238 is
now consistently fixed (for me at least). Basil, can you check whether
you can still reproduce bug#34655 with the current master?

Thanks!