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#1077: bug#670: bug#1077: 23.0.60; x-create-frame: (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p nil) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 22:10:23 +0200 Message-ID: <83fwum5xzk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <003e01c9257c$a385d800$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <009701c9263f$9cce7120$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <000001c94cc1$e10e9c40$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <8F1F8998D60341099C4204B7BDD8AD4F@us.oracle.com> <96BC00F728B94AC18A15EA95B66C5248@us.oracle.com> <83zksv5g7j.fsf@gnu.org> <0A475933984F4CDA855D91C8B7639E3B@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290888907 12671 80.91.229.12 (27 Nov 2010 20:15:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:15:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 1077@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 27 21:15:02 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMRAj-0002Cu-UI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:15:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47153 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMRAj-0003Ep-8k for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:15:01 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48697 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMRAd-0003Da-4f for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:14:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMRAb-0006Tv-QS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:14:55 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:56057) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMRAb-0006Tr-Ou for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:14:53 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMQz8-0007jQ-GH; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:03:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:03:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 1077 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 1077-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B1077.129088817129702 (code B ref 1077); Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:03:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 1077) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Nov 2010 20:02:51 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMQyv-0007j1-Ta for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:02:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMQyt-0007in-Ei for 1077@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:02:48 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LCK00K007VCIF00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 1077@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 22:08:15 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.63.39]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LCK00KNT7XQ9DB0@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 22:08:15 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <0A475933984F4CDA855D91C8B7639E3B@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:03:02 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:41940 Archived-At: > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <1077@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 08:15:17 -0800 > > > Please post a complete recipe, starting with "emacs -Q", to reproduce > > this problem. Since you are unable to run Emacs under GDB and provide > > a traceback which would pinpoint the locus of the error, someone else > > will have to do that, and they will need this recipe. The details you > > posted are important, but they will only help once the exact place > > which throws the error is identified. > > Please read the thread. I did. But I can always hope, can't I? > I don't have a complete recipe starting with emacs -Q. I've spent hours trying > to track down this bug. Believe me, if I had a simple -Q recipe I would have > sent it long ago. And that would have saved me lots of time spent in the > debugger and staring at C-code diffs looking for clues. Can you install GDB (from the MinGW site) and run Emacs under it? If you can install GDB, I can send instructions for how to attach it to Emacs and set a breakpoint where we want it. When the breakpoint breaks, I can tell how to provide the information needed for identifying the code which barfs. My only other idea is to define a Lisp function `error' (which will override the primitive) with the same signature as the primitive, edebug-defun it, and hope that when the problem happens again, you will be able to see from the Lisp backtrace who throws the error. If none of the above helps, then I'm afraid the only chance to fix this is if someone who can stumbles across the same bug. That's because from your descriptions it's quite clear that you have a very complex non-default setup of how buffers are displayed in frames, which makes the chances to reproduce this without a recipe slim at best. > > > No one has tried to look into this. > > That's not true. > > Please read the thread. > > Do you see _any_ indication there that anyone has tried to look at the C code of > the function in question, and at its changes during the time period in question? > From the beginning I pointed to that code, but I am the only one in thread to > speak about it. The fact that you are the only one to post there does not mean no one else tried to figure it out. It just means no one had anything intelligent to say about it.