[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#5123: 23.1.50; emacs hang / 100% CPU load
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#5123: 23.1.50; emacs hang / 100% CPU load |
Date: |
Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:43:06 +0200 |
> From: djcb.bulk@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:55:59 +0200
> Cc:
>
> I was opening an email with a picture in Wanderlust. Emacs hung, CPU load
> went to 100%. I captured the following backtrace (using gdb emacs `pidof
> emacs`):
Thank you for your report.
Can you tell where to get that picture, in order to reproduce the
hang?
> #0 0x0806b17f in append_glyph (it=0xbfde4c48) at xdisp.c:20525
> #1 0x08075517 in x_produce_glyphs (it=0xbfde4c48) at xdisp.c:21241
> #2 0x08082c6e in display_line (it=0xbfde4c48) at xdisp.c:16598
> #3 0x080892a2 in try_window (window=186534188, pos=..., check_margins=0) at
> xdisp.c:14000
> #4 0x0808dc7d in try_scrolling (window=<value optimized out>,
> just_this_one_p=<value optimized out>) at xdisp.c:12788
> #5 redisplay_window (window=<value optimized out>, just_this_one_p=<value
> optimized out>)
> at xdisp.c:13678
> #6 0x0808f363 in redisplay_window_0 (window=186534188) at xdisp.c:12261
This is an optimized build. Too many parameters are optimized out,
and even the backtrace itself is not reliable in optimized builds.
Could you perhaps rebuild Emacs with "-O0 -ggdb -g3", and then show
the backtrace from the same hang? Also, if you single-step Emacs from
this point, or use `finish', does it loop in endlessly, or does it
remain stuck in append_glyph? See the section "If the symptom of the
bug is that Emacs fails to respond" in etc/DEBUG for more details
about this.
Finally, please run GDB from the Emacs's src/ directory? There's a
.gdbinit file there which will show a Lisp backtrace as well.
> If Emacs crashed, and you have the Emacs process in the gdb debugger,
> please include the output from the following gdb commands:
> `bt full' and `xbacktrace'.
Yes, please do that as well.
> Load-path shadows:
> [long list of shadows deleted]
Wow, that's a lot of shadowing! Is it intentional?