From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 17 22:15:19 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Nov 2012 03:15:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51776 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TZvLq-0005gr-BC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:15:19 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48897) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TZvLn-0005gj-0S for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:15:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TZvKq-0005ky-Ee for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:14:19 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:53285) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TZvKq-0005ku-C3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:14:16 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55805) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TZvKn-0005oA-9R for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:14:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TZvKk-0005ev-6o for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:14:13 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:63900) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TZvKj-0005dU-TU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:14:10 -0500 Received: from drachen.dragon ([82.113.121.80]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb003) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0M7ssy-1TMmAa25Fg-00vNOF for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:14:08 +0100 From: Michael Heerdegen To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 24.2.50; resizing backtrace buffer not persistent (again) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:14:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87r4nr4n6h.fsf@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:vhrLjOQJg9dK7VBtO1zCbIulK2O04Z2O3D2udj2Ksu1 /pF1tp3jInHH2lNF6hs5x2aqmhCRkFLHIjWO8+On8NtLLbJ/7t HPxb4LntTeWuosRomCJKAgniYPJZy+o5LN6voNlRhnlIX+tm5K JVPrhkxcD3i2VJzgzSCJt5iigaqGu8NQ/XWhajyS0ZrCpa1mxV wAeVK8EcW8ATxSzWsu+euP2GIstjmEUO8PVCxdwgtU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: michael_heerdegen@web.de List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) Hi, some time ago, Martin Rudalics had written a patch so that when the window displaying *Backtrace* is resized, the effect was persistent. This works in general, but not in every case: In emacs -Q, type M-x debug. The frame gets split vertically. The window below displays *Backtrace*. But dragging the mode-line in the middle doesn't resize the window persistently when you step in the debugger. Resizing is performed here in these lines of `debug': (if (eq debugger-previous-window debugger-window) (when debugger-jumping-flag ;; Try to restore previous height of debugger ;; window. (condition-case nil (window-resize debugger-window (- debugger-previous-window-height (window-total-size debugger-window))) (error nil))) (setq debugger-previous-window debugger-window)) However, in the above case, (eq debugger-previous-window debugger-window) is never true, probably because the vertical splitting into two windows is performed and undone on each step. Would it be harmful to perform resizing unconditionally? This fixes the problem for me, but I'm not sure if it could be harmful in certain situations. OTOH, if the window was created newly when the debugger had been reentered, we already changed the window layout, so forcing a certain size should not be dangerous, in general. Regards, Michael. In GNU Emacs 24.2.50.2 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.10) of 2012-11-17 on drachen Bzr revision: eliz@gnu.org-20121117185106-96kkgf04rybaukwo Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.10707000 System Description: Debian GNU/Linux testing (wheezy) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Nov 18 06:38:02 2012 Received: (at 12921) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Nov 2012 11:38:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52277 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ta3CL-0000Pe-Kh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:38:02 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:59472) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ta3CJ-0000OP-Ix for 12921@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:38:00 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2012 11:37:01 -0000 Received: from 62-47-48-54.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.48.54]) [62.47.48.54] by mail.gmx.net (mp017) with SMTP; 18 Nov 2012 12:37:01 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/n4nkdoB3n9hxxBjvw6loHS3bwuiic4wKN2Hsaiu z71DvG63kZQR43 Message-ID: <50A8C854.1000302@gmx.at> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:36:52 +0100 From: martin rudalics MIME-Version: 1.0 To: michael_heerdegen@web.de Subject: Re: bug#12921: 24.2.50; resizing backtrace buffer not persistent (again) References: <87r4nr4n6h.fsf@web.de> In-Reply-To: <87r4nr4n6h.fsf@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12921 Cc: 12921@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) > In emacs -Q, type M-x debug. The frame gets split vertically. The > window below displays *Backtrace*. But dragging the mode-line in the > middle doesn't resize the window persistently when you step in the > debugger. > > Resizing is performed here in these lines of `debug': > > (if (eq debugger-previous-window debugger-window) > (when debugger-jumping-flag > ;; Try to restore previous height of debugger > ;; window. > (condition-case nil > (window-resize > debugger-window > (- debugger-previous-window-height > (window-total-size debugger-window))) > (error nil))) > (setq debugger-previous-window debugger-window)) > > However, in the above case, (eq debugger-previous-window > debugger-window) is never true, probably because the vertical splitting > into two windows is performed and undone on each step. > > Would it be harmful to perform resizing unconditionally? This fixes > the problem for me, but I'm not sure if it could be harmful in certain > situations. OTOH, if the window was created newly when the debugger had > been reentered, we already changed the window layout, so forcing a > certain size should not be dangerous, in general. You mean a patch like the below? Note that I have no idea how the debugger should behave when the window layout is changed by the debugged code. martin *** lisp/emacs-lisp/debug.el 2012-11-11 01:16:25 +0000 --- lisp/emacs-lisp/debug.el 2012-11-18 09:55:27 +0000 *************** *** 228,247 **** debugger-buffer `((display-buffer-reuse-window display-buffer-in-previous-window) ! . (,(when debugger-previous-window ! `(previous-window . ,debugger-previous-window))))) (setq debugger-window (selected-window)) ! (if (eq debugger-previous-window debugger-window) ! (when debugger-jumping-flag ! ;; Try to restore previous height of debugger ! ;; window. ! (condition-case nil ! (window-resize ! debugger-window ! (- debugger-previous-window-height ! (window-total-size debugger-window))) ! (error nil))) ! (setq debugger-previous-window debugger-window)) (debugger-mode) (debugger-setup-buffer debugger-args) (when noninteractive --- 228,246 ---- debugger-buffer `((display-buffer-reuse-window display-buffer-in-previous-window) ! . (,(when debugger-previous-window ! `(previous-window . ,debugger-previous-window))))) (setq debugger-window (selected-window)) ! (when debugger-jumping-flag ! ;; Try to restore previous height of debugger ! ;; window. ! (condition-case nil ! (window-resize ! debugger-window ! (- debugger-previous-window-height ! (window-total-size debugger-window))) ! (error nil))) ! (setq debugger-previous-window debugger-window) (debugger-mode) (debugger-setup-buffer debugger-args) (when noninteractive From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Nov 18 19:19:12 2012 Received: (at 12921) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Nov 2012 00:19:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53760 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TaF4u-0003Rk-3i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:19:11 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:64498) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TaF4o-0003RY-JR for 12921@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:19:06 -0500 Received: from drachen.dragon ([89.204.139.66]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb003) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0Md4le-1TsJuU04LS-00IM2C; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 01:18:00 +0100 From: Michael Heerdegen To: martin rudalics Subject: Re: bug#12921: 24.2.50; resizing backtrace buffer not persistent (again) References: <87r4nr4n6h.fsf@web.de> <50A8C854.1000302@gmx.at> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 01:18:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: <50A8C854.1000302@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:36:52 +0100") Message-ID: <87sj86e97l.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:KhjHWUlXZrNJa39605AJ8o2VskU/nbN5TApBPtXVOgP tekdz2GMip/gcGQMj/1QOyb0fG2pfX3OeiAtc4p/6dGjVKWO27 /RCQMViFWi1T4Z+PXSDHLHsFQDMlsrRPdgkPe1jBE1OTlHojZD QbbGtUB36itdUBt9swRhUbaemHzSMwxJXRHgu5AO0md0k7YCIy CtcCyO1tfp7PP53LhEYd7doZ2jwX2E1CK9dYdGvv00= X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: martin rudalics writes: > You mean a patch like the below? Exactly. Objections against applying? [...] Content analysis details: (1.2 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (michael_heerdegen[at]web.de) 0.8 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is an abusable web server [89.204.139.66 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [212.227.17.11 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12921 Cc: 12921@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: martin rudalics writes: > You mean a patch like the below? Exactly. Objections against applying? [...] Content analysis details: (1.2 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.8 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is an abusable web server [89.204.139.66 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [212.227.17.11 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (michael_heerdegen[at]web.de) -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] martin rudalics writes: > You mean a patch like the below? Exactly. Objections against applying? > Note that I have no idea how the debugger should behave when the > window layout is changed by the debugged code. Dunno if it's worth trying to optimize the code for that. If I want to debug such code, I can just use a different frame for the debugger. Martin, if you have some time, could you maybe also have a look at what I wrote about 10025 in <87txsn4pjk.fsf@web.de>? If I understood things right and we are lucky, the number of debugger frames in the backtrace has just decreased by 1 due to some change in the past, and the only thing to do is to decrease the appropriate hardcoded numbers in `debug' as well. By "debugger frames" I mean the frames belonging to the code that is added to the debugged functions in order to instrument them. Note that you must recompile debug.el and load the compiled code to see the right behavior, because the number of debugger frames is different if the debugger is run as uncompiled code. Regards, thanks, Michael. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Nov 19 03:04:23 2012 Received: (at 12921) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Nov 2012 08:04:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54225 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TaML8-0005gI-G3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 03:04:23 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:33742) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TaML6-0005gA-5h for 12921@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 03:04:21 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2012 08:02:05 -0000 Received: from 62-47-55-108.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.55.108]) [62.47.55.108] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 19 Nov 2012 09:02:05 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18tnddIQJ8t/WWvXyaBr6UGxDhdT2TEhcYmHK1CGG HmOJwkBfOgz7gr Message-ID: <50A9E772.6080009@gmx.at> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:01:54 +0100 From: martin rudalics MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Heerdegen Subject: Re: bug#12921: 24.2.50; resizing backtrace buffer not persistent (again) References: <87r4nr4n6h.fsf@web.de> <50A8C854.1000302@gmx.at> <87sj86e97l.fsf@web.de> In-Reply-To: <87sj86e97l.fsf@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12921 Cc: 12921@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) >> You mean a patch like the below? > > Exactly. Objections against applying? I can do it on the trunk, once it has reached a fairly stable state again. If someone complains, we can always customize it. >> Note that I have no idea how the debugger should behave when the >> window layout is changed by the debugged code. > > Dunno if it's worth trying to optimize the code for that. If I want to > debug such code, I can just use a different frame for the debugger. OK. > Martin, if you have some time, could you maybe also have a look at what > I wrote about 10025 in <87txsn4pjk.fsf@web.de>? If I understood things > right and we are lucky, the number of debugger frames in the backtrace > has just decreased by 1 due to some change in the past, and the only > thing to do is to decrease the appropriate hardcoded numbers in `debug' > as well. By "debugger frames" I mean the frames belonging to the code > that is added to the debugged functions in order to instrument them. > Note that you must recompile debug.el and load the compiled code to see > the right behavior, because the number of debugger frames is different > if the debugger is run as uncompiled code. Never using `debug-on-entry', I'm hardly qualified to comment on this. Someone would simply have to find the change that broke it. All I can say is that it apparently worked for a build in 2009. Could you try bisecting? I also dont understand whether and how bugs #6209 and #9462 are related to the current issue (IIUC #6209 was never fixed and I don't understand why it was archived). martin From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Aug 25 08:07:24 2020 Received: (at 12921) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Aug 2020 12:07:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60624 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kAXjY-00078J-1h for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 08:07:24 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:40834) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kAXjV-000786-GO for 12921@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 08:07:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=X/PhfZF1OjUMsll3vqlmcIIMrjX/hWrmUqJswfs29N0=; b=dV6fw0dmDtFiMuqzvUNMy21/+f I0/i6RnPA1xKCVn3NQ5V5nF54HRnoQV93urHjh8U2ym2Y52uva0q8oa1WoH8wVjAp1jvox9w/qKHK 0WIDjmkXRw1S1nu8zYTAHMzJLKzPWGbQjdvJy5Cqd3wiGj1ZMsafGFIjnoIXhHxILUPo=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kAXjE-0005HJ-FS; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:07:15 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: martin rudalics Subject: Re: bug#12921: 24.2.50; resizing backtrace buffer not persistent (again) References: <87r4nr4n6h.fsf@web.de> <50A8C854.1000302@gmx.at> <87sj86e97l.fsf@web.de> <50A9E772.6080009@gmx.at> X-Now-Playing: Riow Aral's _Beat Bracelet_: "New Thread" Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:07:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: <50A9E772.6080009@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:01:54 +0100") Message-ID: <87d03f9bfc.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.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 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: martin rudalics writes: >>> You mean a patch like the below? >> >> Exactly. Objections against applying? > > I can do it on the trunk, once it has reached a fairly stable state > again. If someone complains, we can always cu [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12921 Cc: Michael Heerdegen , 12921@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: -1.0 (-) martin rudalics writes: >>> You mean a patch like the below? >> >> Exactly. Objections against applying? > > I can do it on the trunk, once it has reached a fairly stable state > again. If someone complains, we can always customize it. It looks like this patch was never applied? Has the reported problem been fixed in a different way in the years that have passed since this bug was filed? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 06 06:48:33 2021 Received: (at 12921) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Sep 2021 10:48:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52077 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mNCAz-0005AP-NS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 06:48:33 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:34848) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mNCAx-0005A6-Ry for 12921@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 06:48:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=WDK/FAMAYv+aheTCn/MZXbD5enm/PvGU1HEJdBRxytE=; b=PyIJDIi2kBBlpAnrsR5rHbpYRF 9qZm/6qCKPdfNER3une9NnqgWv1CgOCKo1rEnZp/bhgvPr5bDqqCsuuQl2N0IJFhOQrj/+1i1WzrD mk/1V9RUFa6jQuKGdYyRz6k217WKbXzFvomRYDjQY0rmWnPqYtteXUZeYAJ4fERg/Eas=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=elva) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mNCAp-0000Uq-FE; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 12:48:25 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: martin rudalics Subject: Re: bug#12921: 24.2.50; resizing backtrace buffer not persistent (again) References: <87r4nr4n6h.fsf@web.de> <50A8C854.1000302@gmx.at> <87sj86e97l.fsf@web.de> <50A9E772.6080009@gmx.at> <87d03f9bfc.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 12:48:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87d03f9bfc.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:07:03 +0200") Message-ID: <87y28af095.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.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 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > It looks like this patch was never applied? Has the reported problem > been fixed in a different way in the years that have passed since this > bug was filed? Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12921 Cc: Michael Heerdegen , 12921@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: -3.3 (---) Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > It looks like this patch was never applied? Has the reported problem > been fixed in a different way in the years that have passed since this > bug was filed? The problem is still present in Emacs 28, and Martin's patch still fixes the problem, so I've now pushed it to the trunk. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Sep 06 06:48:26 2021 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Sep 2021 10:48:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52074 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mNCAs-0005A5-Ho for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 06:48:26 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:34836) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mNCAq-00059p-Ia for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 06:48:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Subject:From:To:Message-Id:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=WFITyzdXexNaTIyMlMcK60IG+r0/tT/oJ2HmN9jiWeQ=; b=Q19xYM0wpPPnzordwfUosgK3aF 0pUDgJ048qolRzHWS3+vF9TMB46QZqCSKKx0qbVFG76DB0FGK4RLr6T9992djwnN7pmsmcZTVA80U aWrKib9VN0CZF2I728cDn8QjwHJqBSU3fyAGJXEhk/9UEPb+CJj+4LownmkIh32o4YhA=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=elva) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mNCAi-0000Uk-4Z for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 12:48:18 +0200 Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 12:48:14 +0200 Message-Id: <87zgsqf09d.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #12921 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.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 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: close 12921 28.1 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control 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: -3.3 (---) close 12921 28.1 quit From unknown Tue Jun 17 22:28:47 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:24:07 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator