bug#17168: 24.3.50; Segfault at mark_object

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 09:24:01 -0700
> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
> CC: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, dmantipov@yandex.ru, 17168@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > 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?

Because Richard has been using that machine for years, and I very much
doubt that he changed his usage patterns lately.

> >>> 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.

I didn't suggest any new code.

> > 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?

It is related to calling a function, and is in the same function from
which all the recent crashes started.