From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-26 9bf66c6: Don't run FOR_EACH_FRAME when there's no frame left (Bug#29961) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:42:43 +0100 Message-ID: <5A34EA93.1050501@gmx.at> References: <20171215073120.7671.79446@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20171215073122.52703204D3@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <5A34119D.6000407@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1513417400 22474 195.159.176.226 (16 Dec 2017 09:43:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 09:43:20 +0000 (UTC) To: Paul Eggert , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 16 10:43:12 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1eQ8zv-00059a-Iq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:43:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49988 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eQ902-0003lU-JF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 04:43:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33794) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eQ8zr-0003kh-LI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 04:43:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eQ8zo-00072x-Iy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 04:43:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:63944) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eQ8zo-00071O-9O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 04:43:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([212.95.5.176]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M3iU5-1fH0h43BVh-00rHXD; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:42:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:SbVAXyL8lmQUCV557a2tV9SDy4nQy5pbJnrEzF4zkfUEGswagFI 1PRA8deIANu+8pK1mz0z4GqCvw/wjgJUDEPHY7XOOHLzTI9f3RR8V2+7dj5R9D5v8PDq9DT EO6EDe0rSTPMtBI6poDbkyEeZEgK8+5KaMFckNXFXHDaDSwrtHL+AhfXweV/VCIVoHC+JPZ Du+FQvjMRCA4I9Gnbgyxg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:HBtlq3qQZj0=:zFHNLVPnKgodgoiN9OvzcS 7FPOT47IqmsE+P2NyWfFOS8eofDSSAnN/shT5rs/WnwrQpEJ0WuA8/8X10h9b5E+2XL7u8Vof DDS0qUrpZB5llydUful7JjJbwbIoHtI0P4j+kOt3mqJAm0J7TNvyePPhxANvTj4J/qfEEfavZ x/vJCnF+6zXcV8o5XsggciTpqwHK0YTt0+WtNR2dqkFZunAVrqRlhzGoePosMsMUQuL04lbv6 2foXafpiw6yHrM2HNfx76Iw7oCJb3RDFjZ/s2Wa36C4IWEZxaaeUMYEWC3MDJek6/seg5pfAE JIvwxJ1tmwne59u5c3j1DU92/f8sf7AnvjGUszohllGFIqUK4I/gEJGLKhDrzEo0Gs5c1qTU9 kifBSmCj76ClvN9PSrnQHCZr7XGOULBgyQ5Z0Fn7f5Oflt4KH9vzoXrwZPIxJus2CkPGo//Lp FScmiDdQ9TtNolGmP2DMj96mQP3zmIYo460aaB58zLTo4BlY/tUFsrAsFMT5GvgD7IyQFPECf thnrUN3JDTNx1Wq2vP7leGlNxp8kWpejku9BTfUZnkO+yIpvwTjOAj6njUsC6b7CFlXtwklaK /7vjN/i43CZlTZuirolKBrlEFOzq1W6nSgQsTgYZcMuHxnKuwPvYf8CqFq1+WsppK21U8HA5g +Dd0ZS6ESbPWKxGIs5/DccVDwwp9+7C7SYC8bXyyhiN5kbq1X8m+ICxSWiPI/W8EATtWOnob1 Yu31ZewVZi8PhAM+ISh86fJIQi97SHW/LGS6jvLuMyq1oaCYCSvacHlJ+MQOz18piOGsN8K7 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.19 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:221122 Archived-At: > I recognized callers that either --enable-gcc-warnings complained > about (because code after the FOR_EACH_FRAME loop clearly had > undefined behavior unless the loop iterated at least once), Which ones were these? Neither next_frame nor prev_frame exhibit such behavior IMO. > and > callers where historically there was an eassert that checked the > assumption. How far did you go back in history? > check_glyph_memory doesn't fall into either category; and > now that I look at its implementation it's clear that > check_glyph_memory is not making the assumption. Then you should have reverted that change too. I've done that now. Thanks, martin