From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#13968: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:34:09 -0700 Message-ID: References: <837gl84bki.fsf@gnu.org> <83620s4ayv.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1363383291 7349 80.91.229.3 (15 Mar 2013 21:34:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:34:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 13968@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 15 22:35:16 2013 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 1UGcHR-0005G9-9s for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:35:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59565 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGcH4-0002hT-GN for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:34:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52475) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGcGz-0002h0-Sc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:34:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGcGx-0007c5-FO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:34:45 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:52736) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGcGx-0007c1-CX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:34:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UGcID-00007v-Vi for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:36:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:36:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13968 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 13968-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13968.1363383344459 (code B ref 13968); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:36:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 13968) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Mar 2013 21:35:44 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56845 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UGcHv-00007L-0v for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:35:43 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:51586) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UGcHt-000079-0J for 13968@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:35:41 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r2FLYFDM024274 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:34:15 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2FLYE9G005605 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:34:15 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt107.oracle.com (abhmt107.oracle.com [141.146.116.59]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r2FLYEWU013995; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:34:14 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.177.137) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:34:14 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: <83620s4ayv.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: Ac4hwtdPhO4gU09iTgaLYgLKKTzD+QAANeKw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.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:72567 Archived-At: > > Useless without a recipe. > > Forgot to show where it aborts: > > form.rcArea.bottom = (WINDOW_BOTTOM_EDGE_Y (w) > - WINDOW_MODE_LINE_HEIGHT (w)); > > It's an assertion violation, but the report doesn't even say what was > the text of the assertion message. The above 2 macros could abort in > XFRAME, XWINDOW, or XBUFFER. Yes, well there never is a recipe for this kind of thing (but thanks for taking a look)... The crashes I get seem to happen any old time, and each time I send in emacs_backtrace.txt you say it is useless (and I believe you). And I've gotten plenty of crashes, seemingly ever since Emacs Dev starting adding more assertions here and there to the C code. What's the point of adding such assertions and providing backtraces that are apparently useless? That doesn't seem to have accomplished much that is constructive, but it does seem to have increased the number of crashes (just a guess). Anyway, multiple reports of crashes (by me and others) have not prevented Emacs 24.2 or 24.3 from being released. FWIW, before Emacs 24 I rarely had an Emacs crash. The C code seems to be a bit flaky now. There seems to be a lot of C development since Emacs 24.1, and perhaps there is not as much in the way of fixing problems that get introduced along the way. Not an informed judgment, just one, naive impression. I'm not faulting you, Eli, and I do appreciate your taking a look at the bug reports. Just mentioning that in my naive view, Emacs seems less stable than before, on the C side. Presumably such assertions are turned off when Emacs is released (?), so releases should crash less, at least. I tend to use trunk builds, so perhaps I underestimate the release stability in this regard. As you hint above, perhaps the assertions can be refined, so the backtraces produced become more informative. I will continue to report them, unless you say it's not worth the trouble in general.