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: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:04:16 +0100 Message-ID: <52F760B0.6050003@gmx.at> References: <83a9e1wg93.fsf@gnu.org> <52F68E36.7070204@gmx.at> <83zjm1uz1g.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 1391943914 11741 80.91.229.3 (9 Feb 2014 11:05:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 16691@debbugs.gnu.org, lekktu@gmail.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 09 12:05:21 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 1WCSCO-0004nT-W8 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:05:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50241 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCSCO-0006U8-He for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 06:05:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49759) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCSCE-0006SH-8b for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 06:05:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCSC6-0000uS-Os for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 06:05:10 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:45297) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCSC6-0000tc-Kg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 06:05:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCSC6-00085J-2D for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 06:05:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:05:01 +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=B16691.139194387831038 (code B ref 16691); Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:05:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16691) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Feb 2014 11:04:38 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59316 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCSBi-00084X-2m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 06:04:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:59305) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCSBW-000849-H4 for 16691@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 06:04:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.47.43.12] ([62.47.43.12]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LorB9-1VaOfa02Ad-00goPR for <16691@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:04:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <83zjm1uz1g.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Smg8Vw9PVU+RNF1EjDu1eW8YIECHA29sC3DZ3n2nTDy/PH8de9Z QraOlIAgGglngJ2jZUMMNwIR00p1F2ycm2O2X2W6w7y2vxWr1L4i+Gu8fRJ9J4b7TnFWDGS ifaGwBD5FQXQuyAImhe4iJaDt4lIxjjHHvvMwBOIpjOSVx72G0v46HPZNCHRuxodElvyc27 QaIhY0DJmn2PPk/uO+NOA== 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:85082 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. > > I don't know if you did that. I just took a look at the latest > changes preceding the first revno where Drew reported this. My last change before that was to process frame alpha earlier from revision 116242. While being a very dubious change, I can't imagine how it could affect hash values. > As to how this could happen: did any of your changes affect the 'used' > field of the glyph_row structure, under any circumstances? I don't understand the glyph_row structure and hopefully never ever have touched it. The only possibly related change is that of re-introducing an adjust_window_margins call in window_resize_apply in revision 116307, but this happened clearly after Bug#16660. martin