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#16691: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:31:23 +0200 Message-ID: <83zjm1uz1g.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83a9e1wg93.fsf@gnu.org> <52F68E36.7070204@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391891531 13586 80.91.229.3 (8 Feb 2014 20:32:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 20:32:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 16691@debbugs.gnu.org, lekktu@gmail.com, control@debbugs.gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 08 21:32:16 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 1WCEZR-0006Nj-Q2 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:32:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47935 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEZR-0004Vh-D2 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:32:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57545) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEZK-0004UW-DE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:32:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEZF-0003pf-Rp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:32:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:44217) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEZF-0003pb-P3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:32:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEZF-0003Wg-IL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:32:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:32:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16691 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 16691-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16691.139189149813511 (code B ref 16691); Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:32:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16691) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Feb 2014 20:31:38 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58234 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEYr-0003Vq-RB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:31:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:46815) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WCEYo-0003Vd-Va; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:31:36 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N0P00A001UYX800@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:31:33 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N0P00A882CLRO90@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:31:33 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <52F68E36.7070204@gmx.at> 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:84987 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:06:14 +0100 > From: martin rudalics > CC: Juanma Barranquero , drew.adams@oracle.com, > 16691@debbugs.gnu.org, control@debbugs.gnu.org > > > Since this started happening only lately, Martin, could you please see > > if some of your changes could possibly disrupt the glyph row's hash > > values? > > If you told me how I could have done that, maybe. I don't have the > slightest idea. I don't know if you did that. I just took a look at the latest changes preceding the first revno where Drew reported this. As to how this could happen: did any of your changes affect the 'used' field of the glyph_row structure, under any circumstances?