[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: My Emacs unicode 2 crash again when I do some *Replace String (M-%)*

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: My Emacs unicode 2 crash again when I do some *Replace String (M-%)*, I give the debug informations under gdb in the attachments.
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:54:09 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>  > The problem is, again, that the list of -fxxx options that, if
>  > disabled, will make the program much easier to debug, is not known
> We already have one (-fno-cross-jumps or similar).  Others can be
> added as people find out about them.  I'm simply saying that this
> information should be available to *all* Emacs developers (eg, by
> configuring with --marquis-de-sade-optimizations=no-thank-you), not
> just to those who happen to read every post David makes.

I've written this info into the file etc/DEBUG, too, but it would be
overoptimistic to assume that everybody reads that before starting

I actually know no option with similarly devastating effects on
debugging productivity: if registers and values and stuff get
optimized away, that is basically a nuisance, but gdb tells you what
happens (at least with newer debug info formats, which value is where
is traced rather well).  I just fine-combed the other gcc options and
did not detect any option which would have the effect of leading the
debugging person to a completely wrong place: other stuff may make
debugging more adventurous, but as far as I can see, it will not cause
plausible lies from the debugger.

The crossjumps option ruins post-mortem debugging by very convincingly
making the backtrace point to the wrong failed assertion.  It does not
help to put a breakpoint on "abort" either.

It cost me several days of debugging once.

>  > So I don't think we know what to put in aclocal.

Well, not using -fno-crossjumping cost me several days of debugging,
it made me put the info in etc/DEBUG, and it cost another person a few
days before I again volunteered this information.

How much more wasted man-hours do you want, Eli, before "knowing" it
might be a good idea to use this by default?

Debugging failed assertions is not exactly a rare occurence.

I'd say what is good enough for etc/DEBUG is good enough for aclocal.
Of course, we'll need an autoconf check that this option is actually
supported by the gcc version in question.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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