From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: xasserts and vertical motion.
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:27:48 -0500
Message-ID: <E1D6g44-0001AF-Q3@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <x5brae6d85.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
	<E1D3Vd9-00008P-Bt@fencepost.gnu.org> <x5k6ortnux.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1109817254 3566 80.91.229.2 (3 Mar 2005 02:34:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:34:14 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 03 03:34:13 2005
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1D6g9c-0006OL-JM
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:33:32 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1D6gSU-0008EN-UR
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:53:02 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1D6gPk-0007Jk-Oz
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:50:14 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1D6gPZ-0007Dr-4p
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:50:02 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D6gPV-0007AQ-NZ
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:49:57 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D6g45-0004NO-6e
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:27:49 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1D6g44-0001AF-Q3; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:27:48 -0500
Original-To: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
In-reply-to: <x5k6ortnux.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on
	Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:57:58 +0100)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
X-MailScanner-To: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:34114
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:34114

    > You should be able to continue by typing the GDB `return' command
    > and then `c'.  Does it work?

    Not really.  I think that "abort" may be marked as "noreturn" in the
    GCC header files, and so GCC does not bother keeping the stack or code
    in a consistent state after return.

Perhaps you have to compile without optimization.

    As another consequence, without an explicit -fno-crossjumping placed
    into CFLAGS, all asserts in a function will use the same call to
    abort

That is another advantage to compiling without optimization.