Subject: bug#13007: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:39:25 +0200

> From: "Drew Adams" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:02:13 -0800
> 
> > And Drew, could you please try coming up with a simple recipe starting
> > with "emacs -Q"?  If you define a configuration with a minibuffer-less
> > frame, a separate minibuffer frame, and arrange for *Completions* to
> > pop up yet another frame, then trigger completion in some simple way,
> > does Emacs abort like in your original report?
> 
> No, I'm sorry Eli, I just don't have the time for that now.  I have reverted to
> using the Emacs binary before these crashes were introduced.

Don't you still have the buggy binary on your disk somewhere?

> If you happen to make some progress then I will be glad to try the result and
> let you know the effect in my context.

We cannot make progress, because we cannot reproduce your way to
trigger the bug.

> My guess (& hope) is that there is a good chance that Juanma and I were bitten
> by the same bug.

It's the same bug, in the sense that the same assertion is violated.
But they are 2 different ways of triggering that violation, because
the call to the faulty function comes from 2 different places (as
evidenced by the backtrace) and the buffer that is not the current one
is different in these two cases (*scratch* for Juanma, minibuffer for
you).

> If not, we can look into my case more later, when I have some more
> time.

Please do, and thanks.