From unknown Mon Aug 18 14:20:38 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#8334 <8334@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#8334 <8334@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) Reply-To: bug#8334 <8334@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:20:38 +0000 retitle 8334 Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) reassign 8334 emacs submitter 8334 Lennart Borgman severity 8334 normal tag 8334 unreproducible moreinfo wontfix thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 23 20:07:53 2011 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 00:07:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Y5g-0002Ck-PP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:07:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Y5e-0002CZ-G9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:07:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Y5X-0004nG-UT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:07:45 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:57675) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Y5X-0004nC-Qj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:07:43 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49675 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2Y5W-0002V8-AH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:07:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Y5U-0004mz-TG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:07:42 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]:45769) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Y5U-0004mo-LI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:07:40 -0400 Received: by eyh6 with SMTP id 6so2422003eyh.0 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=5cqHwH5TvykOa1vEIicgijp4kNHszNtmCZsf/3Qflf0=; b=RVZa9aZLvVl2yTrK1Tz6k97SDy0Zvf0GyfhwQFZhGADkmcMpQOJ3Sh0prZ7ZGiGnD8 v4Lv4gr1RsVsQwZTM/tyLU8W8ysbWqTjoEoT+d7Sbo/TBnvbSnc8Pmfa1j7T3NEtx9Fa PAESZsLE+gSzwo89niB2J1hUa5ykt9Z26wBVs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=Z4mZyHX1L3pFa8Wx3WzsS+dutr1Wfpoy7tZnPdNtx6wp61cFsVMciM6JpCFHBr3T6H F+9FdRJkGTRTj9pQYcqvcd7j8DwYRygCW3QW2TLHWG4ZpbzrJGEGzh/seFXqXHz2ncBJ SLIMu68CMtuyq3bKCyo1YHh5UkTxatrOkMdDk= Received: by 10.213.13.194 with SMTP id d2mr3273047eba.134.1300925259091; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.22.6 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:07:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Lennart Borgman Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:07:19 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) To: Emacs Bugs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 199.232.76.165 X-Spam-Score: -4.7 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -4.7 (----) I just got a segmentation fault in mark_object. This was with my patched version: This Emacs was built from sources in bazaar identified as: Nick 'trunk' info: revision id: yamaoka@jpl.org-20110216231247-r8dr95j65ud08bqz revno: 103306 date: 2011-02-16 23:12:47 +0000 Nick 'emacsw32' (from 'trunk') info: revision id: lennart.borgman@gmail.com-20110216233741-bbne2i1djpaccnv1 revno: 99348 date: 2011-02-17 00:37:41 +0100 Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x01028778 in mark_object (arg=6637606) at alloc.c:5531 warning: Source file is more recent than executable. 5531 if (EQ (ptr->u.cdr, Qnil)) (gdb) bt #0 0x01028778 in mark_object (arg=6637606) at alloc.c:5531 #1 0x0102880d in mark_object (arg=301623766) at alloc.c:5542 #2 0x0102853e in mark_object (arg=297533442) at alloc.c:5435 #3 0x0102678d in mark_maybe_pointer (p=0x11bc0000) at alloc.c:4089 #4 0x01026520 in mark_memory (start=0x82cae8, end=0x82ff30, offset=0) at alloc.c:4139 #5 0x01026da2 in mark_stack () at alloc.c:4385 #6 0x01027a3c in Fgarbage_collect () at alloc.c:4967 #7 0x01020968 in Feval (form=301887150) at eval.c:2143 #8 0x01021081 in Feval (form=270381486) at eval.c:2312 #9 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=270381710) at eval.c:343 #10 0x01020aff in Feval (form=270381478) at eval.c:2198 #11 0x0101dbf6 in Fif (args=270381470) at eval.c:293 #12 0x01020aff in Feval (form=270381446) at eval.c:2198 #13 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=301886974) at eval.c:343 #14 0x01020aff in Feval (form=301886998) at eval.c:2198 #15 0x0101dbf6 in Fif (args=301887014) at eval.c:293 #16 0x01020aff in Feval (form=301887022) at eval.c:2198 #17 0x01021081 in Feval (form=270381126) at eval.c:2312 #18 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=270458606) at eval.c:343 #19 0x0101eeb2 in Flet (args=270381118) at eval.c:1000 #20 0x01020aff in Feval (form=270383022) at eval.c:2198 #21 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=301889606) at eval.c:343 #22 0x010224d9 in funcall_lambda (fun=301889630, nargs=1, arg_vector=0x82d78c) at eval.c:3021 #23 0x01022004 in Ffuncall (nargs=2, args=0x82d788) at eval.c:2902 #24 0x0102186a in call1 (fn=301889630, arg1=49847742) at eval.c:2643 #25 0x0103ad9f in mapcar1 (leni=30, vals=0x0, fn=301889630, seq=301774390) at fns.c:2344 #26 0x0103b145 in Fmapc (function=301889630, sequence=301774390) at fns.c:2433 #27 0x01020dc4 in Feval (form=270382958) at eval.c:2254 #28 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=301772870) at eval.c:343 #29 0x0101ef8c in Fwhile (args=301772886) at eval.c:1022 #30 0x01020aff in Feval (form=301772894) at eval.c:2198 #31 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=301772902) at eval.c:343 #32 0x0101eeb2 in Flet (args=301772910) at eval.c:1000 #33 0x01020aff in Feval (form=301772918) at eval.c:2198 #34 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=301772950) at eval.c:343 #35 0x0101f22a in internal_catch (tag=271267586, func=0x101dca0 , arg=301772950) at eval.c:1152 #36 0x0101f195 in Fcatch (args=301772982) at eval.c:1123 #37 0x01020aff in Feval (form=301772990) at eval.c:2198 #38 0x01020d17 in Feval (form=301773006) at eval.c:2236 #39 0x01021081 in Feval (form=301772942) at eval.c:2312 #40 0x01021081 in Feval (form=270382894) at eval.c:2312 #41 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=301774582) at eval.c:343 #42 0x0101ef8c in Fwhile (args=301774598) at eval.c:1022 #43 0x01020aff in Feval (form=301774606) at eval.c:2198 #44 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=301774614) at eval.c:343 #45 0x0101eeb2 in Flet (args=301774622) at eval.c:1000 #46 0x01020aff in Feval (form=301774630) at eval.c:2198 #47 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=301774662) at eval.c:343 #48 0x0101f22a in internal_catch (tag=271267586, func=0x101dca0 , arg=301774662) at eval.c:1152 #49 0x0101f195 in Fcatch (args=301774694) at eval.c:1123 #50 0x01020aff in Feval (form=301774702) at eval.c:2198 #51 0x01020d17 in Feval (form=301774718) at eval.c:2236 #52 0x01021081 in Feval (form=301774654) at eval.c:2312 #53 0x01021081 in Feval (form=270382822) at eval.c:2312 #54 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=270458654) at eval.c:343 #55 0x0101eeb2 in Flet (args=270382758) at eval.c:1000 #56 0x01020aff in Feval (form=270382574) at eval.c:2198 #57 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=270458662) at eval.c:343 #58 0x01020aff in Feval (form=270382566) at eval.c:2198 #59 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=270458670) at eval.c:343 #60 0x010224d9 in funcall_lambda (fun=270458678, nargs=1, arg_vector=0x82ef10) at eval.c:3021 #61 0x010221ef in apply_lambda (fun=270458678, args=270458854, eval_flag=1) at eval.c:2954 #62 0x010210ab in Feval (form=270458838) at eval.c:2314 #63 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=270458846) at eval.c:343 #64 0x0101dc16 in Fif (args=270458766) at eval.c:294 #65 0x01020aff in Feval (form=270458758) at eval.c:2198 #66 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=270456958) at eval.c:343 #67 0x010224d9 in funcall_lambda (fun=270456966, nargs=1, arg_vector=0x82f2e0) at eval.c:3021 #68 0x010221ef in apply_lambda (fun=270456966, args=270457342, eval_flag=1) at eval.c:2954 #69 0x010210ab in Feval (form=270457334) at eval.c:2314 #70 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=270457350) at eval.c:343 #71 0x0101eeb2 in Flet (args=270457262) at eval.c:1000 #72 0x01020aff in Feval (form=270457190) at eval.c:2198 #73 0x0101f62f in internal_lisp_condition_case (var=49818274, bodyform=270457190, handlers=270457422) at eval.c:1355 #74 0x0101f451 in Fcondition_case (args=270457182) at eval.c:1297 #75 0x01020aff in Feval (form=270457174) at eval.c:2198 #76 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=270457430) at eval.c:343 #77 0x010224d9 in funcall_lambda (fun=270457438, nargs=0, arg_vector=0x82fa18) at eval.c:3021 #78 0x01022004 in Ffuncall (nargs=1, args=0x82fa14) at eval.c:2902 #79 0x01021738 in run_hook_with_args (nargs=1, args=0x82fa14, cond=to_completion) at eval.c:2573 #80 0x010214fb in Frun_hooks (nargs=1, args=0x82facc) at eval.c:2443 #81 0x01021c62 in Ffuncall (nargs=2, args=0x82fac8) at eval.c:2824 #82 0x0102186a in call1 (fn=49400410, arg1=49289770) at eval.c:2643 #83 0x01005c76 in safe_run_hooks_1 () at keyboard.c:1822 #84 0x0101f739 in internal_condition_case (bfun=0x1005c43 , handlers=49244210, hfun=0x1005c7e ) at eval.c:1408 #85 0x01005d16 in safe_run_hooks (hook=49289770) at keyboard.c:1848 #86 0x01004ff2 in command_loop_1 () at keyboard.c:1545 #87 0x0101f739 in internal_condition_case (bfun=0x10048d9 , handlers=49297818, hfun=0x10042ce ) at eval.c:1408 #88 0x0100463e in command_loop_2 (ignore=49244186) at keyboard.c:1129 #89 0x0101f22a in internal_catch (tag=49295914, func=0x100461b , arg=49244186) at eval.c:1152 #90 0x010045f6 in command_loop () at keyboard.c:1108 #91 0x01003eea in recursive_edit_1 () at keyboard.c:731 #92 0x0100404e in Frecursive_edit () at keyboard.c:793 #93 0x01002767 in main (argc=1, argv=0xb23d08) at emacs.c:1684 Lisp Backtrace: "when" (0x82ce00) "progn" (0x82cf50) "if" (0x82d0a0) "progn" (0x82d1f0) "if" (0x82d340) "when" (0x82d450) "let" (0x82d640) 0x11fe7858 Lisp type 6 "mapc" (0x82d8c0) "while" (0x82db00) "let" (0x82dcf0) "catch" (0x82df00) "cl-block-wrapper" (0x82e010) "block" (0x82e120) "dolist" (0x82e230) "while" (0x82e3e0) "let" (0x82e5d0) "catch" (0x82e7e0) "cl-block-wrapper" (0x82e8f0) "block" (0x82ea00) "dolist" (0x82eb10) "let" (0x82ed10) "progn" (0x82ee60) "menuacc-add-accel-1" (0x82ef10) "if" (0x82f230) "menuacc-add-accel" (0x82f2e0) "let" (0x82f660) "condition-case" (0x82f860) "menuacc-add-accel-from-post-command-hook" (0x82fa18) "run-hooks" (0x82facc) (gdb) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 23 20:49:19 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 00:49:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Yjm-0004lQ-Td for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:49:19 -0400 Received: from vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.145]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Yjl-0004lC-72 for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:49:17 -0400 Received: from furball (dhcp128036014081.central.yale.edu [128.36.14.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2O0nBB3025791 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:49:11 -0400 Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6FED21607C6; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:49:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Chong Yidong To: Lennart Borgman Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) References: Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:49:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:07:19 +0100") Message-ID: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.145 X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -2.7 (--) Lennart Borgman writes: > I just got a segmentation fault in mark_object. This was with my > patched version: No test case supplied; bug occurs on a tree with unspecified modifications. Tagging as unreproducible. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 23 20:52:52 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 00:52:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2YnD-0004qV-Jl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:52:51 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com ([209.85.215.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2YnC-0004qH-1s for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:52:50 -0400 Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so2295512eye.3 for <8334@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:52:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OvEKz9irAjQvMxHEaWySaEl+3BXQNDlmQ/ujz+PjvGA=; b=sIY7dzWOLyFxe9JxsDSIENJ3PYxEmyMUQHhu0X3SA333ghtNP+moDYP6XwehAk8AjB 4/dnLemOryG/ZHfCdiKBhz39jexPenzbUM9N+kvjBmyJIFGUOkC5uebQgQs6Wu5O7IGj YNGHt+3CqFQ42ALNvYT1qlFE6K7vpJKEmXvDY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=t/PUxJckaaJUTs4zxhAbhCnzTyFat4xC82J9jrdn4mYRAJfhHIGva7YlSTKL7VDWpT G4WcjDQqqRWenAdGoCD2btQR1wPo4JwTaUUs1HuIs1BvaIc1p/ufO1QEXjgr6wb8Br3y xRhq/+ZdkzevqwZP+jOYPy3LfPZGPAaYoYLBw= Received: by 10.213.13.194 with SMTP id d2mr3282982eba.134.1300927964250; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:52:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.22.6 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:52:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> From: Lennart Borgman Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:52:24 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) To: Chong Yidong Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -3.6 (---) On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Chong Yidong wrote= : > Lennart Borgman writes: > >> I just got a segmentation fault in mark_object. This was with my >> patched version: > > No test case supplied; bug occurs on a tree with unspecified > modifications. =C2=A0Tagging as unreproducible. Of course there is no test case for this. I have not idea what caused it (except from the info in the backtrace). But what is the advantage and meaning of tagging it as "unreproducible"? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 23 21:09:11 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 01:09:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Z30-0005zd-UJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:09:11 -0400 Received: from vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.144]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Z2z-0005zQ-Kn for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:09:10 -0400 Received: from furball (dhcp128036014081.central.yale.edu [128.36.14.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2O193gm029820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:09:04 -0400 Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8853A1607C6; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:09:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Chong Yidong To: Lennart Borgman Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:09:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:52:24 +0100") Message-ID: <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.144 X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -2.7 (--) Lennart Borgman writes: > Of course there is no test case for this. I have not idea what caused > it (except from the info in the backtrace). But what is the advantage > and meaning of tagging it as "unreproducible"? It is an indicator to Emacs developers that they should work on other bugs. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 23 21:21:09 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 01:21:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2ZEa-0006GV-Ly for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:21:08 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2ZEY-0006Fw-62 for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:21:07 -0400 Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so2299608ewy.3 for <8334@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=RzUlQQ9XMMYVxH4zyKwbJRJTEUpq9LfhgHqct3XaHGw=; b=DcxevprqIt3FaW5nPoO3iNKuoTrADdu5iPWJHAqHQ5Z2K0eHTCPPiurLKfPm1Pca6p fy57SC4HAHLx7Xk6OlO4apJdL5xA2ZHOqxZ2zj7y1wokJdMCzhi4QEw8UA46vADSFOL3 GGZicSeSCVqDSQ33hC/Isr5M9Yd3ba48f1JwU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=ImDHF4psp5uGaIg3pSKuH3z4N1Ivum2rV6ist0V44xTEDrNqqh1sDsNTMeIhB9esrS vWbuMSM9KOzoShtHI2UiZetdnfpadbXQ2XCHfcLMMpJBa7xraSrITOq6p4UhkuqtStK5 rz0ZYBVHGLAaGWzqumyQA3O1mjTkbvz5eqEZI= Received: by 10.213.109.199 with SMTP id k7mr49960ebp.134.1300929660352; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.22.6 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:20:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> From: Lennart Borgman Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:20:40 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) To: Chong Yidong Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -3.6 (---) On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Chong Yidong wrote: > Lennart Borgman writes: > >> Of course there is no test case for this. I have not idea what caused >> it (except from the info in the backtrace). But what is the advantage >> and meaning of tagging it as "unreproducible"? > > It is an indicator to Emacs developers that they should work on other > bugs. It seems like you do not consider it worth looking at. Is not that a quite strange handling of a crash report? How did you came to your conclusion? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 23 21:46:59 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 01:46:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Zda-0006pe-Q7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:58 -0400 Received: from vm-emlprdomr-05.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.146]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2ZdZ-0006pQ-62 for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:57 -0400 Received: from furball (dhcp128036014081.central.yale.edu [128.36.14.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-05.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2O1kpr3013444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:51 -0400 Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 15FB41607C6; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Chong Yidong To: Lennart Borgman Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:20:40 +0100") Message-ID: <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.146 X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -2.7 (--) Lennart Borgman writes: > It seems like you do not consider it worth looking at. Is not that a > quite strange handling of a crash report? How did you came to your > conclusion? If a bug is reported from a modified version of Emacs with a reproducible test case, it is worth investigating, since we can easily check whether it occurs in our unmodified tree. The present bug is reported from a modified version of Emacs, but with no test case, no description of events leading to the crash, and an uninformative backtrace. For all we know, it is due to your own unspecified changes. So it is more profitable for Emacs developers to work on the bugs in our tree that need attention. If you come across any new information, please let us know. Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 23 21:52:35 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 01:52:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Zj1-0006x4-0b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:52:35 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com ([209.85.215.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Ziz-0006wn-5B for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:52:33 -0400 Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so2305262eye.3 for <8334@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:52:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=19oE+SZwnOJMs7ZplQiw0boqxHFQ5dVG2uOGDM1iweQ=; b=qK7VxtsX9JjroiIRi5N4Pk6zylAV9eZXTSvbFq+tbvAXkYjPJU1GYgWc4Sd3SK5xZT gtPcxcHUAhJRlBYX2WR507YkkfVpoQw26X8IieE5XOFFD/nJ1X8eTRFb5pPIai3OE6Rz BLh0UzngajTBJErbfxOvuDsOl1M9z5vmRJWMk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JdTDYkRZ3IJA7+EDJTzCl2Y3Ot53bz564GYvhkakGbx34M3PgIxQNsrZyNRjHirgWJ zskly7i2Bk/wOIPBO75PomIFSXeHpVmH5HI6TADIKZWlGyl3WyuW+Tk3oilA1hMvJdvy mwf/GrEOWyzioXsi9DI3E4lW9lXeS0tJaq8N0= Received: by 10.213.16.84 with SMTP id n20mr57941eba.115.1300931547128; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:52:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.22.6 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:52:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> From: Lennart Borgman Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:52:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) To: Chong Yidong Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -3.6 (---) On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Chong Yidong wrote= : > Lennart Borgman writes: > >> It seems like you do not consider it worth looking at. Is not that a >> quite strange handling of a crash report? How did you came to your >> conclusion? > > If a bug is reported from a modified version of Emacs with a > reproducible test case, it is worth investigating, since we can easily > check whether it occurs in our unmodified tree. > > The present bug is reported from a modified version of Emacs, but with > no test case, no description of events leading to the crash, and an > uninformative backtrace. =C2=A0For all we know, it is due to your own > unspecified changes. =C2=A0So it is more profitable for Emacs developers = to > work on the bugs in our tree that need attention. You make an unwarranted assumption. For all I know it does not depend on my changes. It is not impossible, but I doubt it. The problem is that the different threads involved might be badly coordinated in certain cases. This is a general problem I have pointed to several times (without much success). So why do you make this assumption? > If you come across any new information, please let us know. =C2=A0Thanks. > From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 23 23:08:35 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 03:08:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2auZ-0000y9-AN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:08:35 -0400 Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2auY-0000xy-74 for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:08:34 -0400 Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so3672991gwb.3 for <8334@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:08:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZANV1tDrey6J4FR/j+fzIwSPh0Dzz5jSEE9MSfI3mgY=; b=keGKNfGMgM6XuTduZ71VyFakcX+n2O3ETaWZoVHOsXFiDGvsWDnYY8vfgjRpDv+9/l ESKwnQyEikwEC1Jm+2hSmkK8xLDdNsMc6mTPkbqkomxM9iL/nN9OJDI1f+its44FBJEV XKnqwqgRYq5SjRDd8BI22ov3WEJGOXqRK81E4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=X4JBAxyPhq2XPC7G2vyMlzv5Wms/PUCIOakG1uaNugRcXm4uQi9teeyvDA6IV2TTnl zieQz4hDBd1c/Qadi7nNHrGOUTvuqSD07sg6fcqHaqsrZgd8i07INDBjBkXw8wonSEQ2 60pVh3HNPqtHc0QTa3DCfyox0MWTmSYeTEQEY= Received: by 10.146.91.31 with SMTP id o31mr1116201yab.39.1300936108258; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:08:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.147.34.11 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:07:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:07:48 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) To: Lennart Borgman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -3.4 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: Chong Yidong , 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -3.4 (---) On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 02:52, Lennart Borgman wrote: > The problem is > that the different threads involved might be badly coordinated in > certain cases. Why do you think so? > This is a general problem I have pointed to several > times (without much success). Have you tried building with -fno-strict-aliasing? Bug#8217 is about a crash during garbage collection that apparently disappears with -fno-strict-aliasing, and I've been also experiencing garbage-collection crashes in non-optimized gcc 4+ builds that seem to be "cured" (or most likely, hidden) by that option. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Juanma From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 24 05:32:33 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 09:32:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2gu9-00012V-Eu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:32:33 -0400 Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com ([209.85.218.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2gu7-00012F-Ky for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:32:32 -0400 Received: by yic13 with SMTP id 13so3749981yic.3 for <8334@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:32:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n3rMSJyugR95QaFGUe8mxQkhI0SO3TbYmVbSaj0LIRo=; b=VyXAxu4DAFhX+b7SV47c4MufJgwcZGsUUGUdweJK6Lv3zejOQbkpxpT5YodQBQTaVu qz8sl37jYjVQRzZPYwziZV/3fK4MGD7S2GD8t+Mktpf58qrj8EMyywGv8reyNSmM3fmE GTAS16EtGwTNnIj29T43o6ebCjR6YwQ4mc8DM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=XPT/+l4N7nYGaWHgJ0BjCllWc1B3BG1pPfbF95df3nF52nhGzH5abSln3FLy23Scwm xhz6iEDkP2aa/igfKGSpByX2U1uRKzKrwDdFS1LV1eR1in2mZRDtnhaPswkrs9W7n30I cfZXuQy+CrmMo16Dp1Aut2XP/Vnyx7zj5+KBM= Received: by 10.151.158.18 with SMTP id k18mr7461739ybo.299.1300958696101; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:24:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.147.34.11 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:24:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:24:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) To: Lennart Borgman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: Chong Yidong , 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -3.3 (---) On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 04:07, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > and I've been also experiencing > garbage-collection crashes in non-optimized gcc 4+ builds that seem to > be "cured" (or most likely, hidden) by that option. Disregard that last part, because -fno-strict-aliasing does not (or should not) have any influence in non-optimized builds. The behavior I see must necessarily have other causes. But still it worked for bug#8217, so I suggest you give it a try, if you're building optimized. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Juanma From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 24 10:31:57 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 14:31:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2lZt-0000B5-OB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:31:57 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2lZs-0000As-0i for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:31:56 -0400 Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so20723ewy.3 for <8334@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:31:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=N0fr4bfqyZ/LcR1uvVbtw5XGIX97IlqTHnS8ULsLsNg=; b=SoThToO7HWsoV+JaqDsKoXk/WDuIHmUhsmd/aZUbY1Qxdvk3hSwNGHPLw3nTaFkm3z TPP7zOhfUVNXfq6+81R69I5/gtEKGHbuwGTPxB4N7biWomNbP8g0zR3wz4gYWKuigc7v 2tkpPWXPhfoqBjYuDGW3ugJEuohR671fIs6+I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=SdC5RSsC9z1VgILQBEotLb9cBwQb+y8+LjAo9822zbxsXT7NG7Ou4OepO2xFc6bmTz M1N9ZxMzGr8O7q5xvhDbD2R7bSsyXJQMuSt5t5JR6O4FfG8HNrGGB+z4p7M5bfptPWj9 VxsgfZYqjdpCIxdWOkey8OCNhxJUwJ8lZHRsw= Received: by 10.213.109.213 with SMTP id k21mr3591191ebp.140.1300977109189; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:31:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.33.200 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:31:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> From: Lennart Borgman Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:31:29 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) To: Juanma Barranquero Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: Chong Yidong , 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -3.6 (---) On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 04:07, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > >> and I've been also experiencing >> garbage-collection crashes in non-optimized gcc 4+ builds that seem to >> be "cured" (or most likely, hidden) by that option. > > Disregard that last part, because -fno-strict-aliasing does not (or > should not) have any influence in non-optimized builds. The behavior I > see must necessarily have other causes. But still it worked for > bug#8217, so I suggest you give it a try, if you're building > optimized. Thanks, but I never build optimized any more since that prevents debugging on the C level. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 24 10:33:28 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 14:33:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2lbL-0000DK-Ud for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:33:28 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com ([209.85.215.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2lbJ-0000D8-Qy for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:33:26 -0400 Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so2361eye.3 for <8334@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:33:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=7v7VVvh5CrUnhnUzjb90gXHeiiWe3U2IMRdwXHYVg3g=; b=BQyfvwMBP4NWKlkDIv6EzKp6oRGc38GOjQZVuoLBRdlP+hGkbOyxLJXFMFkYYQFc8E 7wTGPiW/m6YkPFhRJczouT6bCTzx2LTTGwUiwI8zBWyu7jNVk0TKSKkfvUP61qnzZtBI VuniLqLYTF1cbqoYTDdmaTbjLVc8gjot6Lufc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=UOln94z0xWdxRUR7SVI7a15RkDeqos75oVaWP5+tkBHS1jATcMMXEfc2P9vQkHSoxv q7oPh+3zUT5E+40ZD1ApNlK1+HJfLh+BBodiHXRiYCMoeJlLbrRLUtmeBCRpWMuzDNRK lw4WGLU5I3NeEF0hD0XkiX72DAIW7z2ejorME= Received: by 10.213.27.3 with SMTP id g3mr3665158ebc.83.1300977200118; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:33:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.33.200 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:33:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> From: Lennart Borgman Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:33:00 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) To: Juanma Barranquero Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: Chong Yidong , 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -3.6 (---) On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 02:52, Lennart Borgman > wrote: > >> The problem is >> that the different threads involved might be badly coordinated in >> certain cases. > > Why do you think so? Because I have seen quite a few problems related to menus. (This was the original reason for making my patched version of Emacs.) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 24 10:42:11 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 14:42:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2ljn-0000Rg-FA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:42:11 -0400 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183] helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2ljl-0000RV-Fe for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:42:10 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAI/1ik1MCqfZ/2dsb2JhbAClSHiITblzhWkEkmuDDQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,237,1299474000"; d="scan'208";a="97837660" Received: from 76-10-167-217.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.167.217]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 24 Mar 2011 10:42:03 -0400 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 7DE8E59196; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:42:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Chong Yidong Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) Message-ID: References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:42:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:50 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: 8334@debbugs.gnu.org, Lennart Borgman X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -2.1 (--) > The present bug is reported from a modified version of Emacs, but with > no test case, no description of events leading to the crash, and an > uninformative backtrace. For all we know, it is due to your own > unspecified changes. So it is more profitable for Emacs developers to > work on the bugs in our tree that need attention. Actually, this is not the main reason, AFAIC. The problem is that we simply have no way to debug it. Especially for a bug that causes a segfault in the GC, i.e. a bug that apparently causes memory corruption and could hence be anywhere. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 24 10:48:44 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 14:48:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2lq7-0000ar-RO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:48:44 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2lq6-0000af-0S for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:48:42 -0400 Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so34599ewy.3 for <8334@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:48:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YtCsi57pnvGvk1rLSvE2bvXktr7fF9gGUih7dbh7yjs=; b=w/Upbv+yeH2UTFnl9y6fP/ta9S78OI8yMZ4fp8drNl9coAe6RJhKTagJFfB2P5MfSz MwBS8iYM+BPtGJFvf2oFk6PE0NoL9J8u227dxiZ4gMGIjtxQ5IZNDni1Vc1RCYUna+TQ 4i+cl//qtkh/n5gMbHXMD2skIPDw3LPmlK9V0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VFhyuJ87AgEeDFCNJDa0Se7lp0s7MVBl/nrbvcrR07tOy06MFs4lIRbbhVp96mpe8M RF9sS4jD73yaN3eoO8nqukaGFBASRDKinq5NULphMx0PKYann4oLuSU67GFP9qvMkTU6 +9/xMQTGt8js5ahc04z8CmkFmv6Azp4wq+poc= Received: by 10.213.109.213 with SMTP id k21mr3600156ebp.140.1300978116154; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:48:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.33.200 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:48:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> From: Lennart Borgman Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:48:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) To: Stefan Monnier Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: Chong Yidong , 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -3.6 (---) On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> The present bug is reported from a modified version of Emacs, but with >> no test case, no description of events leading to the crash, and an >> uninformative backtrace. =C2=A0For all we know, it is due to your own >> unspecified changes. =C2=A0So it is more profitable for Emacs developers= to >> work on the bugs in our tree that need attention. > > Actually, this is not the main reason, AFAIC. =C2=A0The problem is that w= e > simply have no way to debug it. =C2=A0Especially for a bug that causes > a segfault in the GC, i.e. a bug that apparently causes memory > corruption and could hence be anywhere. True. However I am reporting such bugs because I believe there might be a race condition caused by bad thread coordination behind it. But of course this is just a guess. However as long as we do not have take all possible actions to avoid this I think it is a reasonable guess. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 24 12:37:31 2011 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 16:37:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2nXN-0003mq-Gz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:37:29 -0400 Received: from vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.145]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2nXL-0003mR-4D for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:37:27 -0400 Received: from furball (dhcp128036014187.central.yale.edu [128.36.14.187]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2OGbL1C025447 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:37:21 -0400 Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3E32B160788; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:37:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Chong Yidong To: Lennart Borgman Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:37:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:33:00 +0100") Message-ID: <87bp10a30e.fsf@stupidchicken.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.145 X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 Cc: Juanma Barranquero , 8334@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -2.7 (--) Lennart Borgman writes: > Because I have seen quite a few problems related to menus. (This was > the original reason for making my patched version of Emacs.) Please go ahead and resubmit the patches for consideration. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 27 19:13:52 2012 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Mar 2012 23:13:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41884 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SCfaJ-0006aF-Tw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:13:52 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:34344) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SCfZo-0006ZY-Qu; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:13:48 -0400 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SCf5U-00077M-TM; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:42:01 -0400 From: Glenn Morris To: 8334-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> X-Spook: Rumsfeld Firefly S Box plutonium Rubin Arnett Cohiba data X-Ran: 8*5xT+ro3n/(~txleVgW[MVig."9sml}PN%Tf/?)R|KTE,{e^e9D=?Kc^RwIHP^qJ"qcwk X-Hue: cyan X-Attribution: GM Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:42:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:49:11 -0400") Message-ID: <6r4wdy8cn.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control 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: -6.9 (------) tags 8334 wontfix stop Chong Yidong wrote: > No test case supplied; bug occurs on a tree with unspecified > modifications. Tagging as unreproducible. Nothing changed in the past year; closing since nothing can be done. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 27 19:20:44 2012 Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Mar 2012 23:20:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41896 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SCfgw-0007Z2-V4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:20:44 -0400 Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]:64442) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SCfgf-0007Yb-WB for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:20:41 -0400 Received: by lagj5 with SMTP id j5so456104lag.3 for <8334@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:49:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=e7OEvGMw97IW0HDV1iDCBXUqs4W+twRy3kjyTFFXW+E=; b=gOAVqUv488jvRvlLpOS3vRrJkKbvv7sec5N5nSaggqKDofVIotTzcPANQP2EPEJ2kj zJ+GBRdTAgOfowOArOHOBjmnSayqj1Z5RFWCv1fKjwpczaHvchdYpj2g/PYLrBaoqYBe sgZH0iBXH8/x35mKXbjDHQBPSFGgbiXRFNRZMtG7Y6XVHUJmvetVW0227AIegApUftyf pzb/RfqpoQ4s4EVMhF0RJrtBa3+XqJyas+kcQsNNEhBpINzro+czpQIZW32I8PmNZNPf GVnYxbw4ayynBZL9ouy8ppyNNAnWS6irsWTN4FMV1uFPcrM0afig6zi/bCfrVBzZ1AiH ZPSg== Received: by 10.152.127.9 with SMTP id nc9mr20169230lab.20.1332888546827; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:49:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.2.200 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:48:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6r4wdy8cn.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> From: Lennart Borgman Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:48:46 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#8334: closed (Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version)) To: 8334@debbugs.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8334 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: -2.6 (--) Ok, I have not seen it since. On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:14, GNU bug Tracking System wrote: > Your bug report > > #8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) > > which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed. > > The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. > If you require more details, please reply to 8334@debbugs.gnu.org. > > -- > 8334: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D8334 > GNU Bug Tracking System > Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0Glenn Morris > To:=C2=A08334-done@debbugs.gnu.org > Cc: > Date:=C2=A0Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:42:00 -0400 > Subject:=C2=A0Re: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patc= hed version) > tags 8334 wontfix > stop > > Chong Yidong wrote: > >> No test case supplied; bug occurs on a tree with unspecified >> modifications. =C2=A0Tagging as unreproducible. > > Nothing changed in the past year; closing since nothing can be done. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0Lennart Borgman > To:=C2=A0Emacs Bugs > Cc: > Date:=C2=A0Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:07:19 +0100 > Subject:=C2=A0Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) > I just got a segmentation fault in mark_object. This was with my > patched version: > > =C2=A0This Emacs was built from sources in bazaar identified as: > > =C2=A0Nick 'trunk' info: > =C2=A0revision id: yamaoka@jpl.org-20110216231247-r8dr95j65ud08bqz > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0revno: 103306 > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 date: 2011-02-16 23:12:47 +0000 > > =C2=A0Nick 'emacsw32' (from 'trunk') info: > =C2=A0revision id: lennart.borgman@gmail.com-20110216233741-bbne2i1djpacc= nv1 > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0revno: 99348 > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 date: 2011-02-17 00:37:41 +0100 > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > 0x01028778 in mark_object (arg=3D6637606) at alloc.c:5531 > warning: Source file is more recent than executable. > 5531 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0if (EQ (ptr->u.cdr, Qnil)) > (gdb) bt > #0 =C2=A00x01028778 in mark_object (arg=3D6637606) at alloc.c:5531 > #1 =C2=A00x0102880d in mark_object (arg=3D301623766) at alloc.c:5542 > #2 =C2=A00x0102853e in mark_object (arg=3D297533442) at alloc.c:5435 > #3 =C2=A00x0102678d in mark_maybe_pointer (p=3D0x11bc0000) at alloc.c:408= 9 > #4 =C2=A00x01026520 in mark_memory (start=3D0x82cae8, end=3D0x82ff30, off= set=3D0) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0at alloc.c:4139 > #5 =C2=A00x01026da2 in mark_stack () at alloc.c:4385 > #6 =C2=A00x01027a3c in Fgarbage_collect () at alloc.c:4967 > #7 =C2=A00x01020968 in Feval (form=3D301887150) at eval.c:2143 > #8 =C2=A00x01021081 in Feval (form=3D270381486) at eval.c:2312 > #9 =C2=A00x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D270381710) at eval.c:343 > #10 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D270381478) at eval.c:2198 > #11 0x0101dbf6 in Fif (args=3D270381470) at eval.c:293 > #12 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D270381446) at eval.c:2198 > #13 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D301886974) at eval.c:343 > #14 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D301886998) at eval.c:2198 > #15 0x0101dbf6 in Fif (args=3D301887014) at eval.c:293 > #16 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D301887022) at eval.c:2198 > #17 0x01021081 in Feval (form=3D270381126) at eval.c:2312 > #18 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D270458606) at eval.c:343 > #19 0x0101eeb2 in Flet (args=3D270381118) at eval.c:1000 > #20 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D270383022) at eval.c:2198 > #21 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D301889606) at eval.c:343 > #22 0x010224d9 in funcall_lambda (fun=3D301889630, nargs=3D1, arg_vector= =3D0x82d78c) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0at eval.c:3021 > #23 0x01022004 in Ffuncall (nargs=3D2, args=3D0x82d788) at eval.c:2902 > #24 0x0102186a in call1 (fn=3D301889630, arg1=3D49847742) at eval.c:2643 > #25 0x0103ad9f in mapcar1 (leni=3D30, vals=3D0x0, fn=3D301889630, seq=3D3= 01774390) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0at fns.c:2344 > #26 0x0103b145 in Fmapc (function=3D301889630, sequence=3D301774390) at f= ns.c:2433 > #27 0x01020dc4 in Feval (form=3D270382958) at eval.c:2254 > #28 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D301772870) at eval.c:343 > #29 0x0101ef8c in Fwhile (args=3D301772886) at eval.c:1022 > #30 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D301772894) at eval.c:2198 > #31 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D301772902) at eval.c:343 > #32 0x0101eeb2 in Flet (args=3D301772910) at eval.c:1000 > #33 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D301772918) at eval.c:2198 > #34 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D301772950) at eval.c:343 > #35 0x0101f22a in internal_catch (tag=3D271267586, func=3D0x101dca0 , > =C2=A0 =C2=A0arg=3D301772950) at eval.c:1152 > #36 0x0101f195 in Fcatch (args=3D301772982) at eval.c:1123 > #37 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D301772990) at eval.c:2198 > #38 0x01020d17 in Feval (form=3D301773006) at eval.c:2236 > #39 0x01021081 in Feval (form=3D301772942) at eval.c:2312 > #40 0x01021081 in Feval (form=3D270382894) at eval.c:2312 > #41 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D301774582) at eval.c:343 > #42 0x0101ef8c in Fwhile (args=3D301774598) at eval.c:1022 > #43 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D301774606) at eval.c:2198 > #44 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D301774614) at eval.c:343 > #45 0x0101eeb2 in Flet (args=3D301774622) at eval.c:1000 > #46 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D301774630) at eval.c:2198 > #47 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D301774662) at eval.c:343 > #48 0x0101f22a in internal_catch (tag=3D271267586, func=3D0x101dca0 , > =C2=A0 =C2=A0arg=3D301774662) at eval.c:1152 > #49 0x0101f195 in Fcatch (args=3D301774694) at eval.c:1123 > #50 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D301774702) at eval.c:2198 > #51 0x01020d17 in Feval (form=3D301774718) at eval.c:2236 > #52 0x01021081 in Feval (form=3D301774654) at eval.c:2312 > #53 0x01021081 in Feval (form=3D270382822) at eval.c:2312 > #54 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D270458654) at eval.c:343 > #55 0x0101eeb2 in Flet (args=3D270382758) at eval.c:1000 > #56 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D270382574) at eval.c:2198 > #57 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D270458662) at eval.c:343 > #58 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D270382566) at eval.c:2198 > #59 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D270458670) at eval.c:343 > #60 0x010224d9 in funcall_lambda (fun=3D270458678, nargs=3D1, arg_vector= =3D0x82ef10) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0at eval.c:3021 > #61 0x010221ef in apply_lambda (fun=3D270458678, args=3D270458854, eval_f= lag=3D1) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0at eval.c:2954 > #62 0x010210ab in Feval (form=3D270458838) at eval.c:2314 > #63 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D270458846) at eval.c:343 > #64 0x0101dc16 in Fif (args=3D270458766) at eval.c:294 > #65 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D270458758) at eval.c:2198 > #66 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D270456958) at eval.c:343 > #67 0x010224d9 in funcall_lambda (fun=3D270456966, nargs=3D1, arg_vector= =3D0x82f2e0) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0at eval.c:3021 > #68 0x010221ef in apply_lambda (fun=3D270456966, args=3D270457342, eval_f= lag=3D1) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0at eval.c:2954 > #69 0x010210ab in Feval (form=3D270457334) at eval.c:2314 > #70 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D270457350) at eval.c:343 > #71 0x0101eeb2 in Flet (args=3D270457262) at eval.c:1000 > #72 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D270457190) at eval.c:2198 > #73 0x0101f62f in internal_lisp_condition_case (var=3D49818274, > =C2=A0 =C2=A0bodyform=3D270457190, handlers=3D270457422) at eval.c:1355 > #74 0x0101f451 in Fcondition_case (args=3D270457182) at eval.c:1297 > #75 0x01020aff in Feval (form=3D270457174) at eval.c:2198 > #76 0x0101dcc9 in Fprogn (args=3D270457430) at eval.c:343 > #77 0x010224d9 in funcall_lambda (fun=3D270457438, nargs=3D0, arg_vector= =3D0x82fa18) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0at eval.c:3021 > #78 0x01022004 in Ffuncall (nargs=3D1, args=3D0x82fa14) at eval.c:2902 > #79 0x01021738 in run_hook_with_args (nargs=3D1, args=3D0x82fa14, > =C2=A0 =C2=A0cond=3Dto_completion) at eval.c:2573 > #80 0x010214fb in Frun_hooks (nargs=3D1, args=3D0x82facc) at eval.c:2443 > #81 0x01021c62 in Ffuncall (nargs=3D2, args=3D0x82fac8) at eval.c:2824 > #82 0x0102186a in call1 (fn=3D49400410, arg1=3D49289770) at eval.c:2643 > #83 0x01005c76 in safe_run_hooks_1 () at keyboard.c:1822 > #84 0x0101f739 in internal_condition_case (bfun=3D0x1005c43 , > =C2=A0 =C2=A0handlers=3D49244210, hfun=3D0x1005c7e = ) at eval.c:1408 > #85 0x01005d16 in safe_run_hooks (hook=3D49289770) at keyboard.c:1848 > #86 0x01004ff2 in command_loop_1 () at keyboard.c:1545 > #87 0x0101f739 in internal_condition_case (bfun=3D0x10048d9 , > =C2=A0 =C2=A0handlers=3D49297818, hfun=3D0x10042ce ) at eval.c= :1408 > #88 0x0100463e in command_loop_2 (ignore=3D49244186) at keyboard.c:1129 > #89 0x0101f22a in internal_catch (tag=3D49295914, > =C2=A0 =C2=A0func=3D0x100461b , arg=3D49244186) at eval.c= :1152 > #90 0x010045f6 in command_loop () at keyboard.c:1108 > #91 0x01003eea in recursive_edit_1 () at keyboard.c:731 > #92 0x0100404e in Frecursive_edit () at keyboard.c:793 > #93 0x01002767 in main (argc=3D1, argv=3D0xb23d08) at emacs.c:1684 > > Lisp Backtrace: > "when" (0x82ce00) > "progn" (0x82cf50) > "if" (0x82d0a0) > "progn" (0x82d1f0) > "if" (0x82d340) > "when" (0x82d450) > "let" (0x82d640) > 0x11fe7858 Lisp type 6 > "mapc" (0x82d8c0) > "while" (0x82db00) > "let" (0x82dcf0) > "catch" (0x82df00) > "cl-block-wrapper" (0x82e010) > "block" (0x82e120) > "dolist" (0x82e230) > "while" (0x82e3e0) > "let" (0x82e5d0) > "catch" (0x82e7e0) > "cl-block-wrapper" (0x82e8f0) > "block" (0x82ea00) > "dolist" (0x82eb10) > "let" (0x82ed10) > "progn" (0x82ee60) > "menuacc-add-accel-1" (0x82ef10) > "if" (0x82f230) > "menuacc-add-accel" (0x82f2e0) > "let" (0x82f660) > "condition-case" (0x82f860) > "menuacc-add-accel-from-post-command-hook" (0x82fa18) > "run-hooks" (0x82facc) > (gdb) > > > From unknown Mon Aug 18 14:20:38 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:24:03 +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