bug#58338: 29.0.50; mapatoms called on more elements than in obarray?

[Philip Kaludercic]

Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>>>From reading the docstring of `mapatoms', I would assume that this would
>> evaluate to t:
>>
>> (let ((i 0))
>>   (mapatoms (lambda (_) (setq i (1+ i))) obarray)
>>   (= (length obarray) i))
>>
>> But instead on my system I get (length obarray) ↝ 15121 and and i ↝
>> 78050, which is are at a ratio of 5.16169565505.
>
> obarray is a hash table. with each array element being a list of symbols
> if not empty, for hash collisions.  And it's not a hash table of the
> kind that make-hash-table makes, which I added much later.  And not a
> Lisp list of symbols.

I see, from the value it appeared to be a flat vector.

> With your figures, it seems that there are on average 5 symbols per
> bucket.  For details you'd have to look at the C code.

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 16:16:03 +0000
>> 
>> 
>> >From reading the docstring of `mapatoms', I would assume that this would
>> evaluate to t:
>> 
>> (let ((i 0))
>>   (mapatoms (lambda (_) (setq i (1+ i))) obarray)
>>   (= (length obarray) i))
>> 
>> But instead on my system I get (length obarray) ↝ 15121 and and i ↝
>> 78050, which is are at a ratio of 5.16169565505.
>> 
>> Also interesting, if I intern a variable "foo", the value of i increases
>> to 83106, while (length obarray) stays the same (?)
>
> You assume that obarray is a flat vector or something?  Or how about
> if you explain why the above surprised you?

In that case what confuses me is that (length obarray) doesn't throw an
error.  Or what useful information does that give me?