[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#18180: 24.3.92; Segfault in mark_object

From: Dmitry Antipov
Subject: bug#18180: 24.3.92; Segfault in mark_object
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 13:15:32 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0

On 08/04/2014 10:46 AM, Mat Smiglarski wrote:

I have not been able to reproduce this by automating the calls to 

Reproduced with (dotimes (i 100) (stress-speed-read (current-buffer)))).

Ugh, it seems that we never initialize undo-list of indirect buffer.  You can 
this trivial fix just to avoid crash:

=== modified file 'src/buffer.c'
--- src/buffer.c        2014-07-27 13:21:30 +0000
+++ src/buffer.c        2014-08-04 09:06:08 +0000
@@ -825,6 +825,7 @@
   name = Fcopy_sequence (name);
   set_string_intervals (name, NULL);
   bset_name (b, name);
+  bset_undo_list (b, BVAR (b->base_buffer, undo_list));

   reset_buffer (b);
   reset_buffer_local_variables (b, 1);

But this bug raises an interesting question: should an indirect buffer's undo 
be always the same as the one of its base buffer?


reply via email to

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