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 21:09:03 -0400 Message-ID: <87mxkltjdc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <87ei5xs5q0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1300930643 27858 80.91.229.12 (24 Mar 2011 01:37:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:37:23 +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 02:37:19 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 1Q2ZUF-0005hj-7m for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:37:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39335 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2ZUE-00019Z-Hr for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:37:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=32824 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2ZU6-00018f-La for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:37:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2ZU5-0005xh-7d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:37:10 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42310) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2ZU5-0005xc-4u for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:37:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Z3r-00060n-8X; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:10:03 -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 01:10:03 +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=B8334.130092895223045 (code B ref 8334); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:10:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8334) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2011 01:09:12 +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 1Q2Z30-0005zd-UJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:09:11 -0400 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.144]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2Z2z-0005zQ-Kn for 8334@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:09:10 -0400 Original-Received: from furball (dhcp128036014081.central.yale.edu [128.36.14.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2O193gm029820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:09:04 -0400 Original-Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8853A1607C6; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:09:03 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:52:24 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.144 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:10:03 -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:45301 Archived-At: Lennart Borgman writes: > Of course there is no test case for this. I have not idea what caused > it (except from the info in the backtrace). But what is the advantage > and meaning of tagging it as "unreproducible"? It is an indicator to Emacs developers that they should work on other bugs.