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#11984: 24.1; segfault while deleting a window Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:41:55 +0200 Message-ID: <5007E473.7080303@gmx.at> References: <83r4s88n7n.fsf@gnu.org> <87txx47724.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.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 1342694525 16959 80.91.229.3 (19 Jul 2012 10:42:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:42:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Russell Sim , 11984@debbugs.gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 19 12:42:02 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SroBG-0003Ak-BG for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:42:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42011 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SroBF-0000XB-N3 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:42:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39922) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SroBB-0000SE-NL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:41:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SroB6-0005JP-VE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:41:57 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:40067) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SroB6-0005JL-S1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:41:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SroH5-0007Qw-B1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:48:03 -0400 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: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:48:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 11984 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 11984-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B11984.134269483428458 (code B ref 11984); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:48:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 11984) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jul 2012 10:47:14 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49598 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SroGI-0007Ow-F5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:47:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:39992) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SroGG-0007Op-7J for 11984@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:47:13 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2012 10:40:58 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-39-3.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.39.3]) [62.47.39.3] by mail.gmx.net (mp030) with SMTP; 19 Jul 2012 12:40:58 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+FXCwc4RyFeMmTNReBnR2Qwc4UxbVZjLGbcY7EGB 9+eD0PfdFIKXHT In-Reply-To: <87txx47724.fsf@gnu.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list 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:62153 Archived-At: > But for long-term safety, I think > decode_any_windows had better signal an error if the window's frame > isn't live. But I'm not sure if there's any subtle reliance in existing > code on allowing window functions to be called for windows on dead > frames---anyone know? Maybe the best way to find out is to install such a change? martin