On 04/06/2014 09:19 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:59:55 -0700 >> From: Daniel Colascione >> CC: dmantipov@yandex.ru, 17168@debbugs.gnu.org >> >>> As an alternative, would it make sense to try to understand why the >>> problems started when they did? IOW, how come we never saw this until >>> now? >> >> Who knows? The problem arises we happen to form a pointer on the stack >> to an undead symbol, and *any* code change could be responsible for our >> doing that more frequently. I don't see you can blame it on 114156. > > Then how do you explain that we never saw such problems, in all the > years before? It's probabilistic. How do you know we didn't? >>> In http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15583#23, Richard >>> provided the last good revno (113938) and the first bad one (114268); >>> I looked at that range of revisions, and 114156 looks relevant. How >>> about if we revert it and see if the problems go away? >> >> The bug would still be there, and we'd have no way to tell whether your >> proposed change actually reduced its occurrence to a tolerable level. >> Why would you want to do that instead of just fixing the bug? > > Because it's simpler, It's easy to make code that's simple and wrong. > and because it just might be that the bug was > caused by that other changeset. How might that changeset in particular have caused the problem reports?