From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#12745: crash in bidi_pop_it during (idle) redisplay Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:51:56 +0200 Message-ID: <83624tzkur.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83624wt247.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1353862352 24884 80.91.229.3 (25 Nov 2012 16:52:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:52:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: alptekin.aker@gmail.com, 12745@debbugs.gnu.org To: Ami Fischman Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 25 17:52:43 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 1TcfRe-0001G9-Gh for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:52:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45864 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TcfRT-0002pg-I6 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:52:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56858) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TcfRR-0002pQ-Ag for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:52:26 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TcfRQ-0004QP-CT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:52:25 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:56385) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TcfRQ-0004QL-8o for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:52:24 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TcfT0-0003bi-0e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:54:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:54:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12745 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 12745-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12745.135386240913828 (code B ref 12745); Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:54:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 12745) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Nov 2012 16:53:29 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38403 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TcfST-0003ay-3G for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:53:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:51898) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TcfSR-0003aq-3M for 12745@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:53:27 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0ME100900XI6HI00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 12745@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:51:48 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0ME1008RDYUBB3Q0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:51:47 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il 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.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:67455 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:52:19 -0800 > From: Ami Fischman > Cc: Alp Aker , 12745@debbugs.gnu.org > > > If you don't have 110767, then why is it interesting to report this > > crash? That revision was supposed to fix precisely this crash. > > I didn't get the impression from our previous exchange that you had such a > high confidence in the connection (just that you were sure it was fixing a > bug, not that it was necessarily the bug I was tripping over). I wasn't 100% sure because I could not reproduce the original problem. But from looking at the code that caused assertion violation, I can see no other reasons than what was fixed in 110767. > I'll sync & rebuild and will report back if I get another one of these. Thanks.