From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6414: f->output_data.w32->menubar_widget uninitialized? Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 03:44:27 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1309743926 1531 80.91.229.12 (4 Jul 2011 01:45:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 01:45:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6414@debbugs.gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 04 03:45:22 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QdYDy-0000PC-68 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 03:45:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33506 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QdYDw-0002WP-R9 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:45:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35692) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QdYDh-0002V0-E7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:45:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QdYDg-0001kL-BK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:45:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:49934) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QdYDg-0001kD-7h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:45:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QdYDf-0002Aj-03; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:45:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 01:45:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6414 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs,w32 X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6414-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6414.13097438958325 (code B ref 6414); Mon, 04 Jul 2011 01:45:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6414) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Jul 2011 01:44:55 +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 1QdYDX-0002AE-1m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:44:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com ([209.85.215.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QdYDV-00029y-8X for 6414@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:44:53 -0400 Original-Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so1946208eye.3 for <6414@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:44:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=6hk4aD+RA6LdYT2aB9TpvM28aSbZDran9iS2N4n4O4c=; b=ty25/JqLn/epZfBVC7oIes8geKI5m/Sk8oTEs7JZxCtaDaYDX0wHdqUNzV+ZaQJavj JgvxvtGEnkK+6T7AywwZTbbB++5LtoIsKMlAEXXfbx18IFynqH1Lf5FMix9oQtzFsHG3 aGoyl5w0XhivYpnGozWpLVhh/BrvuLKaauYcI= Original-Received: by 10.213.114.66 with SMTP id d2mr1601179ebq.102.1309743887184; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.213.7.84 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 18:44:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 21:45:03 -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: , 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:47907 Archived-At: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 03:21, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > >> Of course, but you just do not know it was a race condition. You have >> no clue at all, since such a condition with a system call can give >> very strange results. (I have seen such cases.) > > It's irrelevant whether the user knows that it was a race condition. > Either s/he sees a bug, or s/hee does not. A debug message could still help. >> I would say every system call. Why do you think some of them should be >> excluded from error checking? > > There are many reasons. In some cases, an error means something could > not be done, but reporting it does not help and the fact that it was > not done does not cause any harm. If that is taken care of I agree of course. > In other cases, a system call can > return an error, but it just never happens (or if it happens, the > reason is serious enough that Emacs failing will not be the biggest > problem). A bad assumption in my book. > Adding error checking to all system calls adds unneeded complexity in > these cases where there's nothing to do if the system call fails, and > it failing is not going to cause data loss or the World War III. Yes, it is extra complexity. But I think the extra complexity that is the result of not doing this error checking is much, much worse. There might be very serious troubles and you have no idea what it is. Note that not only errors in Emacs code can cause problems here, but compiler bugs etc. >> That one in x_free_frame_resources (that I told about 2010-06-13). > > Again: what change? Adding error checking? Just switching the order: The problem seems to be in x_free_frame_resources. Should not free_frame_menubar be called before my_destroy_window there? Hm. I am not quite sure now. Something in my memory is waving a flag and saying something about it. Can't see it now ;-) Could you please check the MS doc and see if these calls should be switched? When I read them I came to that conclusion, but it might be wrong (and the MS doc might also be wrong). >> I wonder why I cared to add that check then. Perhaps was it executed >> before, I have no idea now. > > Then, why did you comment it? I did not notice now. Sorry.