From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17168: 24.3.50; Segfault at mark_object Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 09:24:01 -0700 Message-ID: <53417FA1.1060100@dancol.org> References: <87y4zop44m.fsf@yahoo.fr> <533C3AF5.6070502@yandex.ru> <533C6905.9060309@dancol.org> <83bnwjbh8v.fsf@gnu.org> <533C75A6.60900@dancol.org> <533D06E6.2060001@yandex.ru> <533D07EF.1040502@yandex.ru> <533D13E2.3060300@dancol.org> <533D251E.3030108@dancol.org> <533D6A19.8050504@yandex.ru> <533D9099.3000104@dancol.org> <533D9F2C.7030500@yandex.ru> <533D9FBB.2050803@dancol.org> <533DB4F0.20706@dancol.org> <534085B1.9070307@dancol.org> <838uri8pkf.fsf@gnu.org> <534179FB.4090301@dancol.org> <834n268m7r.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="v6MHKWUoQhtLclr7A7Gfsf4phfaP0EdnG" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396801521 12321 80.91.229.3 (6 Apr 2014 16:25:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 16:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dmantipov@yandex.ru, 17168@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 06 18:25:15 2014 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 1WWpsh-0002kp-LI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:25:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58653 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WWpsh-0004Wq-89 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:25:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57805) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WWpsZ-0004Nv-Gx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:25:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WWpsV-0000tx-94 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:25:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:37065) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WWpsV-0000tf-5o for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:25:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WWpsU-0003U1-Ce for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:25:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Daniel Colascione Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 16:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17168 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 17168-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17168.139680144813319 (code B ref 17168); Sun, 06 Apr 2014 16:25:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17168) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Apr 2014 16:24:08 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38247 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WWprb-0003Sk-Ny for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:24:08 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([96.126.100.184]:45153) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WWprZ-0003Sb-3W for 17168@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:24:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=4RG9utyAwvT7kHGv1EnpRmFkSoOkKKQCnAMpF29wdYM=; b=mgqiElish1mkvKK2flDdT0Ox1ALo84mWZka0ZL9I06MkoYGFIiIsx8Xg9DeBky03VMXz1aDodb7pYs6LhG9Fxo3FxhhOOlkMWR3YlRZXcVtJvA3d0eBkBIjyi6nzQ6iPsAOUP0niEnDidiqajIPe/V4i3v7SkUCHRiglynP7r7YQTl1bsfK1nUn5PgqCXkjDlCHYkDQy0SPjUUaoM8fEqERA8SxvrmQRH3OBX3yaDJNbWikUUTSto0/8mrbu2IvvgzH6nsY39ifpzqM+dDAWPzh9iRGCeNw/2JoK3MfdrvaUqLpnnEHoMWgR0oLF5mNCsbo01x/wi2Z+S94OY/i5QQ==; Original-Received: from [2601:8:b200:551::2b1] by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WWprX-0005S2-2X; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 09:24:03 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 In-Reply-To: <834n268m7r.fsf@gnu.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 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:87808 Archived-At: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --v6MHKWUoQhtLclr7A7Gfsf4phfaP0EdnG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/06/2014 09:19 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:59:55 -0700 >> From: Daniel Colascione >> CC: dmantipov@yandex.ru, 17168@debbugs.gnu.org >> >>> As an alternative, would it make sense to try to understand why the >>> problems started when they did? IOW, how come we never saw this unti= l >>> now? >> >> Who knows? The problem arises we happen to form a pointer on the stack= >> to an undead symbol, and *any* code change could be responsible for ou= r >> doing that more frequently. I don't see you can blame it on 114156. >=20 > Then how do you explain that we never saw such problems, in all the > years before? It's probabilistic. How do you know we didn't? >>> In http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D15583#23, Richard >>> provided the last good revno (113938) and the first bad one (114268);= >>> I looked at that range of revisions, and 114156 looks relevant. How >>> about if we revert it and see if the problems go away? >> >> The bug would still be there, and we'd have no way to tell whether you= r >> proposed change actually reduced its occurrence to a tolerable level. >> Why would you want to do that instead of just fixing the bug? >=20 > Because it's simpler, It's easy to make code that's simple and wrong. > and because it just might be that the bug was > caused by that other changeset. How might that changeset in particular have caused the problem reports? --v6MHKWUoQhtLclr7A7Gfsf4phfaP0EdnG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTQX+hAAoJEMAaIROpHW7ICK4P/0LmgoG7AG/IvtoRFmgQkC1U 7UXTVaCRToUQVwwVZjYSyJuQhkI5SX4VDlf1FWdYsMy18NrE0XYG0oUUDsucI8HR Kon4PNaiwQ7FJHrpjEfqFLL+/R19xi7D35AzsgR22SPmht7nqrqEGrChqXYQeEGo +tfgvnk1QIekMvY3A+sw9wtAvyvpOtIEK+6ZHb48vgRocUcuyCWhZNug4sClRkfS APYaAabriBhYVVSbXfEiIgPCbACgQAYLvhtfnvDPLyRf8VpKncWo0PEzrdIJTL8o uqeM7FNooeK3W/Y8+6ZXr5mtbZjUn/2fpV/+eWpdaPCdQF/98JBNTdmSDVB+R9L6 LSwZHzEYHjnpMO7vMipnNgifTtLUZ+o66FpDWlhS+HukTLc3M4oxp8Cua4Rfm4jH pfzu/fwLiIahA8OKvJHDN2870N0Om5F3TjxlUr9uIaxgVmRYV72yo94+dCGRJaqs R16iJNXR9cFTFVs/mR+u38YVxipwKcIXRksachdxbO6KpNsuFBIcpzMFUd5cchSo Oy06XDFECQNVbwy/YKm2BpHfK015pL7VtO7SPU4B135QusLUEhjftQ3VzwK18Vyt 1G5f1G+aPB2G72RgR2HUUbEkO5gdR2fVnF10s/OYu0BDqYIsYh3uOkl0fyWKHxP1 BnajGORSSYFzjgiNd0kt =u3H+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --v6MHKWUoQhtLclr7A7Gfsf4phfaP0EdnG--