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#16691: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:06:14 +0100 Message-ID: <52F68E36.7070204@gmx.at> References: <83a9e1wg93.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: ger.gmane.org 1391890047 30097 80.91.229.3 (8 Feb 2014 20:07:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 20:07:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 16691@debbugs.gnu.org, Juanma Barranquero , control@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 08 21:07:32 2014 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 1WCEBQ-0002pA-GP for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:07:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47851 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEBQ-0006mj-0U for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:07:24 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54059) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEBG-0006jo-8m for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:07:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEB4-0005FH-9o for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:07:14 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:44170) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEB4-0005FB-6l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:07:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEB3-0000WE-Qf for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:07:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:07:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16691 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 16691-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16691.13918899821917 (code B ref 16691); Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:07:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16691) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Feb 2014 20:06:22 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58183 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEAQ-0000Uq-9r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:06:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:50732) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEAO-0000Uh-4q for 16691@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:06:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.47.48.134] ([62.47.48.134]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lk7T8-1VeX2W3n3a-00c6S6 for <16691@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:06:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <83a9e1wg93.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:v5GD/A5RaVqPVRDHohoYCNtehpLY8qO0lnr7QuhU2EfKbXD8InX gudf/R2D6wBW4DY51hffIbcbwtaq/YcqIMpGUzEeqQsByiRZXLJNH8RLL45BygvRv7KU2ZB Yf5AU4REm3eaFnysUfgZPfQFu5QObFfAgfx/e+O5irUDnFNyq0lIN6pVquwD2BzyloWvkUr Z93rXIn1J5I02WnYUdm0Q== X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x 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:84982 Archived-At: > Since this started happening only lately, Martin, could you please see > if some of your changes could possibly disrupt the glyph row's hash > values? If you told me how I could have done that, maybe. I don't have the slightest idea. martin