[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#7728: 24.0.50; GDB backtrace from abort

From: martin rudalics
Subject: bug#7728: 24.0.50; GDB backtrace from abort
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:35:52 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

>> I doubt it's kosher because if the old selected window is not on the
>> restored frame and a window on the restored frame gets selected, the
>> point of the buffer whose window is deselected is not stored in the old
>> selected window's pointm which is certainly not TRT.
> But I bet Drew's code works just fine, when it does not crash.

I doubt the scenario sketched above shows up frequently.  And when it
show up I doubt many people would notice it.

> Anyway, if switching away of the frame inside save-window-excursion is
> not allowed, we should detect that and signal an error.

It _is_ allowed by design.

> That would
> solve this bug cleanly, with no need for any low-level hacking or
> kludges.

Have you looked into the ChangeLog of this?  It was never clean and
people just managed to make it work, more or less.

As I noticed earlier, one bug is in the design of using two variables
that should never change independently from each other.  Better, there
should be only one variable - either selected_window or selected_frame.
After that has been solved we would have to fix the bug where the
selected window is not the selected window because it's on a frame that
has not been risen.  And, finally we should warn people to avoid things
like `save-window-excursion' in the first place.

>> To avoid the present crash we could try something like the attached
>> patch (which does not try to solve anything but that crash).
> But if you say that switching a frame inside save-window-excursion is
> not supported, why do we need to change code to support it?  What am I
> missing?

As I said it is allowed.  But almost all 100 or so occurrences of
`save-window-excursion' in Emacs are harmful.  Take, for example, the
commented-out sections of buff-menu.el.  Richard took them out
apparently because he used that code in practice and noticed that it
didn't DTRT.  Most other instances are still here because people don't
care enough.


reply via email to

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