bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#13968: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: bug#13968: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:17:31 +0200

> From: "Drew Adams" <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:34:09 -0700
> 
> > > Useless without a recipe.
> > 
> > Forgot to show where it aborts:
> > 
> >       form.rcArea.bottom = (WINDOW_BOTTOM_EDGE_Y (w)
> >                             - WINDOW_MODE_LINE_HEIGHT (w));
> > 
> > It's an assertion violation, but the report doesn't even say what was
> > the text of the assertion message.  The above 2 macros could abort in
> > XFRAME, XWINDOW, or XBUFFER.
> 
> Yes, well there never is a recipe for this kind of thing

As I probably already said, they are probably related to your heavy
use of separate and minibuffer-less frames.  But this conclusion is
not instrumental to fixing those aborts, without a clear recipe to
reproduce a similar problem and/or without the ability to look around
when the abort does happen.  I urge you (again) to run Emacs from GDB
and leave the GDB session running long enough for us to ask you to
investigate after the abort.

> What's the point of adding such assertions and providing backtraces that are
> apparently useless?

The assertions are not specific to the aborts you experience.  They
are part of C macros, such as XWINDOW and XBUFFER, which extract C
data structures from a Lisp object.  These macros are used all over
the code.

> Anyway, multiple reports of crashes (by me and others) have not prevented 
> Emacs
> 24.2 or 24.3 from being released.

In a release version, these assertions are not compiled into the
binary.

> FWIW, before Emacs 24 I rarely had an Emacs crash.

Probably because pretest and snapshot binaries before that were not
compiled with these assertions.

> Presumably such assertions are turned off when Emacs is released (?)

Yes.

> As you hint above, perhaps the assertions can be refined, so the backtraces
> produced become more informative.  I will continue to report them, unless you
> say it's not worth the trouble in general.

Please continue reporting them.  However, it will be much more useful
if you could let us investigate by using GDB.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]