From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24358: 25.1.50; re-search-forward errors with "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size" Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:55:17 -0400 Message-ID: <87vax2v9vu.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> References: <87twe6sx2g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1475960136 23522 195.159.176.226 (8 Oct 2016 20:55:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 20:55:36 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: 24358@debbugs.gnu.org, peder@klingenberg.no To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 08 22:55:32 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bsyeJ-0003Si-F1 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 22:55:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42339 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bsyeI-0002LQ-1A for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:55:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54918) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bsyeB-0002K4-Ka for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:55:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bsye6-0005wj-NP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:55:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:42884) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bsye6-0005wd-L9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:55:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bsye6-00055v-DB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:55:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2016 20:55:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24358 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 24358-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24358.147596009419567 (code B ref 24358); Sat, 08 Oct 2016 20:55:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24358) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Oct 2016 20:54:54 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49074 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bsydy-00055X-LO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:54:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:37234) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bsydv-00055G-S9 for 24358@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:54:53 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id z65so38016469itc.0 for <24358@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:54:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=cYGTT7e6BU4rA1TOy6OFRzMzHVNDlvooVoWngY96Gdg=; b=X4FS3tCs1Yr/S8vi/Y3MzMBbidXfj5wLBV8nvx2oqczym1mSIymsP9/4POZ+ete1IL V01qpiwBwFZQ9wEu9vsLsRct2FEOJEQqucbdUCvWytbHlgQXtgxQjx+c+qIftNv+RYeW +3LUR+7RRUM7HKORVMDzxEZuUqx6XKo+bORAQ5K+rMbRthJOpk2DIQqa4/agEFMEU0d2 KuCdBHgN/CeTWK1S+TFF/dj8JKtQ2k0TK5j0quKcAsI3/cAECXcTyxTO6GOpqacnJb/Z F02lRvJoqkza2XeT+hbRYR9iI5VguCBh1NPiaEwGCo0jeKWDgwpAOMmyJafuCCe8j84h SBSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=cYGTT7e6BU4rA1TOy6OFRzMzHVNDlvooVoWngY96Gdg=; b=hgxPHQrqfdaB+XdScgpdics1cAgVEaf68QHjXDjq432sAj7J2XGWBwuttipfBHbRz2 2RXpf7S5tuneETftz9/TNGfcYfwPzsuXlhU5BGCvZ9FdxgVEtgHAHqSUrvLdmTrHzOXT 94cP+lxG14eyL90V+MA92/UkWxV7PWQlI2FAlRlP27LbA3AWVV7tw/Skt8uAqQR7FqqA tq/Cx4VkNzt3XF9cQM3FLEHmfOmEZDZElS4iCHpbZ2y2GhiMk72XGqNl+qsjqavTFIXE 7CScC6E4n4NvJUqI+GFiUY+NK6y+376H05yKWOb4yaPbDATVOUo93wSgE4XIDGPnOx1V IQSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rm4UC0RhD/44k2KLBk6q5656tgprSEWjWXY7u3E8hDvdBcdTjQgZnjUfg6FKHQ0eA== X-Received: by 10.36.115.72 with SMTP id y69mr4340424itb.52.1475960083019; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zony ([45.2.7.130]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id z42sm3663833ita.11.2016.10.08.13.54.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:54:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 08 Oct 2016 22:47:41 +0300") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:124250 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >> Thread 1 "emacs" hit Hardware watchpoint 4: current_buffer->text->beg >> >> Old value = (unsigned char *) 0x18351b8 "" >> New value = (unsigned char *) 0x188a1b8 "" >> r_alloc_sbrk (size=290816) at ralloc.c:818 > > r_alloc_sbrk? What OS is this? We only use ralloc.c on a handful of > them, as of Emacs 25. Uh, it's GNU/Linux (Arch), so not too obscure I would think. Where is the decision to use ralloc made? Maybe something went wrong in my configure?