From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8334: Segmentation fault in mark_object (in my patched version) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:50 -0400 Message-ID: <878vw5nvcl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1300932439 2729 80.91.229.12 (24 Mar 2011 02:07:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:07:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8334@debbugs.gnu.org To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 24 03:07:15 2011 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 1Q2ZxC-0002sA-AN for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 03:07:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34547 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2ZxA-00055S-Sd for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:07:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42574 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2Zx5-00055J-Tn for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:07:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Zx4-00035u-OQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:07:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:59752) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Zx4-00035l-Mh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:07:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Zdd-0006pw-Pz; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:47:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Chong Yidong Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:47:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8334 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8334-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8334.130093121926269 (code B ref 8334); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:47:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 01:46:59 +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 1Q2Zda-0006pe-Q7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:58 -0400 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-05.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.146]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2ZdZ-0006pQ-62 for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:57 -0400 Original-Received: from furball (dhcp128036014081.central.yale.edu [128.36.14.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-05.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2O1kpr3013444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:51 -0400 Original-Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 15FB41607C6; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:46:51 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:20:40 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.146 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:47:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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: , 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:45303 Archived-At: Lennart Borgman writes: > It seems like you do not consider it worth looking at. Is not that a > quite strange handling of a crash report? How did you came to your > conclusion? If a bug is reported from a modified version of Emacs with a reproducible test case, it is worth investigating, since we can easily check whether it occurs in our unmodified tree. The present bug is reported from a modified version of Emacs, but with no test case, no description of events leading to the crash, and an uninformative backtrace. For all we know, it is due to your own unspecified changes. So it is more profitable for Emacs developers to work on the bugs in our tree that need attention. If you come across any new information, please let us know. Thanks.