From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: core dump while in gnus Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:19:33 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200204152200.g3FM0mj23884@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018934580 15280 127.0.0.1 (16 Apr 2002 05:23:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 05:23:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ralfixx@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16xLQi-0003yL-00 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:23:00 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16xLim-0001PN-00 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:41:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16xLOu-00056u-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:21:08 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16xLOc-000553-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:20:50 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA14550; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:19:33 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Richard Stallman In-Reply-To: <200204152200.g3FM0mj23884@aztec.santafe.edu> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2653 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2653 On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: > (gdb) p *current_buffer > $7 = { > size = 537002092, > next = 0x10765200, > own_text = { > beg = 0x4060018
, > > If this is what happens, I suggest you add code at the places > that set the beg field which will check whether the new > value is invalid. The `size' member looks very suspicious as well, no?