From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 01 04:48:51 2021 Received: (at 33848) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Apr 2021 08:48:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56266 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lRt0U-0000a5-UC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 04:48:51 -0400 Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.200]:39747) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lRt0T-0000Zl-Dr for 33848@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 04:48:49 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 92.169.147.163 Received: from bababa (lfbn-idf2-1-1335-163.w92-169.abo.wanadoo.fr [92.169.147.163]) (Authenticated sender: mail@ambrevar.xyz) by relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E79D320018; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:48:42 +0000 (UTC) From: Pierre Neidhardt To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: bug#33848: Store references in SBCL-compiled code are "invisible" In-Reply-To: <87eefu30a4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87r2e8jpfx.fsf@gnu.org> <87d0psi1xo.fsf@gnu.org> <874lb3kin6.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87sgynezha.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvj2yesd.fsf@netris.org> <877efwe04u.fsf@gnu.org> <8736qji7c1.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87tvizvzgk.fsf@netris.org> <87o9979gfn.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvizgghs.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k1juaomo.fsf@gnu.org> <87muoqhk62.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87zhsq8wkj.fsf@gnu.org> <87d0pmhbgn.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87r2e28tkv.fsf@gnu.org> <874laygkiy.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87lfa5eymf.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87tuoscsk9.fsf@gnu.org> <87im57b8u7.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87czvebky2.fsf@netris.org> <87eefu30a4.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 10:48:41 +0200 Message-ID: <87eefu9yqe.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi! > The separate ASCII file doesn’t solve it all because, as you write, we’d > need to change the grafting code as well. > > Then it might be simpler to use a “byte vector” data type for those > [...] Content analysis details: (1.8 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [217.70.183.200 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4 RBL: Very Good reputation (+4) [217.70.183.200 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 33848 Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant , 33848@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi! > The separate ASCII file doesn’t solve it all because, as you write, we’d > need to change the grafting code as well. > > Then it might be simpler to use a “byte vector” data type for those > [...] Content analysis details: (1.8 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [217.70.183.200 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4 RBL: Very Good reputation (+4) [217.70.183.200 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! > The separate ASCII file doesn=E2=80=99t solve it all because, as you writ= e, we=E2=80=99d > need to change the grafting code as well. > > Then it might be simpler to use a =E2=80=9Cbyte vector=E2=80=9D data type= for those > strings. Which strings and where would we use byte vectors? > We=E2=80=99ll have to wait for Pierre=E2=80=99s patches to get a better i= dea. > :-) By "Pierre's patches", you mean a patch to add a build phase that generates an file listings all references? Cheers! =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAmBliOkSHG1haWxAYW1i cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/NlgIAKW2OYmihOC2vAPTom6G7OEh7DU4xzU5 h+e9acIDKKjBR4PwbxTBwWJdF4Hq5i9rRNBM/Vr5OU8lN/0ikpTmh/2TCxzHPBC0 1Ln+8AJmIKaIc6VIXW24IhsT0F3CBkrbz0ch+iQYFlV3HJ8Vi/V4pa62865Y7jC0 mI4evp3puwutJjE4cPchBh6NJyF/0IGkbuS3f4E1ErrtcaFDUX3bCSsTZ29Jk/8U qEE67epxAgZYUj2OeH/464JtGWmrr8j6XQaTrmYWxeAWLDrozjDjtD0yBWxAX5Oy gcxOVbDcOXJbf4K3OLXoCj+jdIIrorf6y2nuPYqcoJ33h8XfcB1IdYk= =4p1L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--