From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#19983: 24.4; exit-emacs regression in 24.4? Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:30:16 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87pp8rc9e5.fsf@gmail.com> <83egp6qef7.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2yrvea4.fsf@gmail.com> <83d24jlb52.fsf@gnu.org> <83bnk3lacu.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8znumft.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1426015891 8849 80.91.229.3 (10 Mar 2015 19:31:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 19983@debbugs.gnu.org To: Sam Halliday Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 10 20:31:24 2015 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 1YVPs9-0002WO-CO for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 20:31:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51079 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVPs8-0004MY-9h for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:31:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52655) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVPs3-0004Jx-HW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:31:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVPs2-00058P-JI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:31:15 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:43370) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVPs2-00058A-8J for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:31:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YVPs0-0000JD-Tx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:31:13 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Glenn Morris Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:31:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19983 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 19983-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19983.14260158291134 (code B ref 19983); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:31:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 19983) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Mar 2015 19:30:29 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41938 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YVPrI-0000ID-8D for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:30:29 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:44465 ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YVPr8-0000Hr-FA for 19983@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:30:19 -0400 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVPr6-00030C-A0; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:30:16 -0400 X-Spook: Ft. Meade FIPS140 chameleon man CBNRC quarter Uzi X-Ran: GpH3}j4/D54zi[}tpYe."5qcoAB'p})6Z5]%:t]DRQ#";ct=ios'/ (Sam Halliday's message of "Sun, 08 Mar 2015 22:57:42 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.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:100357 Archived-At: Sam Halliday wrote: > 5f53d2441abf6eafe8e14f29d73e14afe8bec35f is the first bad commit This commit first appeared in Emacs 23.4. This makes no sense, since you previously said that the issue (whatever it actually is) was not present in 24.1, 24.2, or 24.3. So why are you even bisecting over such old revisions? You might want to repeat your bisection but only over the range corresponding to the 24.3 and 24.4 releases. (Personally I think this report is suffering from a lack of a minimal reproducible example.)