From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Crash with --enable-checking and some glyphs Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:55:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87h7c1u0cg.fsf@gnus.org> <87v90h6271.fsf@gnus.org> <83lf1d8uyw.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1b561kn.fsf@gnus.org> <871r35ziyl.fsf@gnus.org> <87sfvlwkrc.fsf_-_@gnus.org> <87sfvlh1zo.fsf@gmail.com> <87h7c0flfk.fsf@gnus.org> <874k807166.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnkwb8q7.fsf@gnus.org> <87sfvkb85w.fsf@gnus.org> <83wnkw469i.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee739kjx.fsf@gnus.org> <83h7bz2i9f.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtlrt2ei.fsf@gnus.org> <838rxb2c8i.fsf@gnu.org> <87a6hrt0ti.fsf@gnus.org> <8335ni3mr4.fsf@gnu.org> <877dctsnhz.fsf@gnus.org> <83sfvhy6mv.fsf@gnu.org> <227d35a5bcbe91bfe96c@heytings.org> <87k0gt475z.fsf@gnus.org> <227d35a5bc18f4dc6e25@heytings.org> <83k0gsycce.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3315"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, rpluim@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 29 15:03:59 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mrhGA-0000eW-Ic for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:03:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53350 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mrhG9-0008Bu-JO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:03:57 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51170) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mrh8T-0003Jf-6y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:56:01 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:57686) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mrh8Q-0003uI-VZ; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:56:00 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20210101; t=1638194156; bh=13Sef/Rj2f6tqsfKAWz72tAb8pDySZUnmXJ3Z3g+Shk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=DsSLD77azc7mi/o8uAVA+LYNa/q5m+aHCpfG3Aru93nDncCZKV/7BkJA+l/rDU40Y YfhCGJNjHTkhI2NIjXsQBtj7ShX3wBn2v0O+xeidiy44u8aoyF71qbUTbIlwYxVtyG 0WU2cP0SilrjZhIyfqEBOf0firBaGbef8rIqlUuCzsR1GJVtsg6KpPtJyw3V+Vmj7t W9mUNnAe303F7gD9UE1an4Ok1AxhtybAO3SWsQqOx41IhBT6Ru7esBZWF1Xbu2Y/2J 9bgVaCUv74f22qnOuwXuk8YNZor9LbAR7Y3W0ZZu+HLfomyd8vqjvOTf/9/XWtJpEm 8arhYHQJIg/ZA== In-Reply-To: <83k0gsycce.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.142.160.155; envelope-from=gregory@heytings.org; helo=heytings.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:280476 Archived-At: >> I very much doubt that this is the root cause of this bug. > > What do you mean by "this"? > "This" means the absence of the "if (it->ascent < 0) it->ascent = 0;" and " if (it->descent < 0) it->descent = 0;" in that branch of the function. Indeed adding such limitations fixes the problem, but there is apparently another bug elsewhere that remains unfixed, and that could pop up later in a different form. > > Since the fonts are identical, the root cause could be in the font > backend (which is not our code) or maybe elsewhere. > The fonts are identical indeed, but the font backends are also identical. So the problem is likely not in the font backends. > > You are welcome to investigate further > I'll do that (if Lars agrees to answer my queries, because ATM I cannot reproduce the problem locally).