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#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:42:57 +0200 Message-ID: <83ob1nrxem.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831tylvkq2.fsf@gnu.org> <83lhwstu1k.fsf@gnu.org> <83ppm3rznz.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393868658 749 80.91.229.3 (3 Mar 2014 17:44:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:44:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 16901@debbugs.gnu.org, dmantipov@yandex.ru To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 03 18:44:21 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 1WKWua-0003Y7-Vz for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:44:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41063 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKWua-0005C6-2L for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:44:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53955) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKWuO-00052F-O7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:44:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKWuJ-0004kv-7h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:44:08 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:48186) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKWuJ-0004km-4S for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:44:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WKWuI-0000Yz-KD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:44:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16901 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 16901-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16901.13938685962068 (code B ref 16901); Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:44:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16901) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Mar 2014 17:43:16 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49368 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WKWtX-0000XH-KW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:43:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:56875) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WKWtV-0000X7-0U for 16901@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:43:14 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N1V00B00FS2UI00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 16901@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:43:11 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N1V00BNCFVYC1A0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:43:11 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il 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:86502 Archived-At: > From: Juanma Barranquero > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:28:03 +0100 > Cc: 16901@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Antipov > > > When I see such bugs in such veteran code, I usually question > > my own sanity. > > I would question how much that code has been used (for the bug in > GC_MCHECK code); as for the other, it surely has been giving us grief > for years, but not in a consistent enough way. Until now. I think we rarely, if ever, get unaligned blocks in a production build. The bug only shows when malloc returns a 16KB block whose alignment is not a multiple of 1K. A GC_MCHECK build does that all the time, because it reserves the first 8 bytes of every block for a hidden header.