[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#18438: 24.4.50; assertion failed in bidi.c

From: aidalgol
Subject: bug#18438: 24.4.50; assertion failed in bidi.c
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:59:32 +1200
User-agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.5.3

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 05:47:21 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

I closed the session, but I got another bidi.c assert, this time in a
different place.  Is this one more like bug #17817?

Yes, it does.  And like that one, it makes no sense: it clearly shows
that 'type' passed to bidi_check_type is STRONG_L, a valid value.
Here's the relevant part of the backtrace:

#0 terminate_due_to_signal (sig=6, backtrace_limit=2147483647) at emacs.c:361
No locals.
#1 0x00000001005b9a67 in die (msg=0x100a5aad8 <DEFAULT_REHASH_SIZE+64> "UNKNOWN_BT <= type && type <= NEUTRAL_ON", file=0x100a5aad0 <DEFAULT_REHASH_SIZE+56> "bidi.c", line=329) at alloc.c:7160
No locals.
#2 0x00000001005010fe in bidi_check_type (type=STRONG_L) at bidi.c:329
No locals.
#3 0x0000000100506230 in bidi_level_of_next_char (bidi_it=0x223d08) at bidi.c:2430
        type = STRONG_L
        level = 0
        prev_level = 0
        next_for_neutral = {
          bytepos = 0,
          charpos = -1,
          type = UNKNOWN_BT,
          type_after_w1 = UNKNOWN_BT,
          orig_type = UNKNOWN_BT
        next_char_pos = 1

The only reason I could think of for such assertion violations is some
asynchronously run code that doesn't properly restore registers.
Which is pretty far-fetched, but what else can explain this?

I still have this session open, by the way. Do you want anything more out of it?

reply via email to

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