From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10296: 24.0.92; check_glyph_memory still aborting Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:42:08 +0100 Message-ID: <4EE86F70.1000105@gmx.at> References: <4EE8548C.9030901@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1323855775 27477 80.91.229.12 (14 Dec 2011 09:42:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10296@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 14 10:42:51 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RalMQ-0004tL-DW for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:42:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36571 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RalMP-00034V-Pi for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:42:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45909) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RalMK-00034I-Hm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:42:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RalMF-0003JQ-K0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:42:44 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:36582) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RalMF-0003JM-EL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:42:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RalNa-000688-1e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:44:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:44:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10296.132385581723508 (code B ref 10296); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:44:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Dec 2011 09:43:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RalNA-000674-Rm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:43:37 -0500 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RalN8-00066w-FC for 10296@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:43:35 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2011 09:42:10 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-43-146.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.43.146]) [62.47.43.146] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 14 Dec 2011 10:42:10 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/cgYlxeavcjcfG15F8N7Rqu84ku3GvkG6SA4vftf lDu/JlK0ZmcPz9 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:44:02 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:54942 Archived-At: > Thanks, but why did you file a new bug? why not write to an address of > #9943 instead? Because I didn't know whether I had to unarchive #9943 first. Which is the precise address I'd have to use (if it matters)? > I will look into this in a few days if no one beats me to it. Thanks, martin