From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17893: 24.4.50; (error "Marker does not point anywhere") Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:50:17 +0100 Message-ID: <5A1BD1C9.1000002@gmx.at> References: <8facd635-be88-4990-8e7d-538db19c3e1a@default> <04af8576-c419-4d35-9c6e-7170828ac949@default> <83h8tpdkd4.fsf@gnu.org> <83o9nwd77g.fsf@gnu.org> <83shd38l86.fsf@gnu.org> <837eue8hrd.fsf@gnu.org> <5A1A96D5.7050706@gmx.at> <83d1456n1v.fsf@gnu.org> 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 1511772685 5694 195.159.176.226 (27 Nov 2017 08:51:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17893@debbugs.gnu.org, charles@aurox.ch, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 27 09:51:14 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1eJF8A-0000U5-TU for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:51:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59764 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eJF8I-0006gE-5I for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 03:51:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45440) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eJF88-0006dk-MI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 03:51:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eJF82-0000Ys-SR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 03:51:08 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51352) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eJF82-0000Yc-Pd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 03:51:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eJF82-0001Sb-GV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 03:51:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:51:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17893 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17893-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17893.15117726445588 (code B ref 17893); Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:51:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17893) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Nov 2017 08:50:44 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60033 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eJF7j-0001S4-Nm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 03:50:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:53230) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eJF7i-0001Rs-0x for 17893@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 03:50:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([46.125.250.81]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MbrR4-1ebKT619oE-00JGe8; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:50:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: <83d1456n1v.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:XcGVFrrahSnjIxWvFZJ3SKGiI3JayVg9cZxxbyoy6bqOvWS2oJe xLq0SShPIXKXlKMhzWKWaKVIE9n8l+OD/BSns6KMLXtINK0AbP7s3jt+4roP1+jgOU1cwDC n4Xtygdi9nXUm3tOtYUd+DwGFggxRuB7UDapAW1WyBq8uXpOePPHm7Y0fhpFsA0Pn0p9O46 Kd4fRSZYqOoP9RE8QUCkg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:uUS78b9gYa4=:MVPoBd7+KLf3sVX24Cn8V8 u0r6vnkvUITpGJ1a8rVzD6WKfTu4n3DTDqylbUle/kmFL5qAfn3dLVDi6uYB6hxrIrWGBJSEt Sf5M1vxbiYh8BIYCqWlFPFOt6yxuYzkjpMWiq6GQ6E8myTZvEQFfOz6OVmloNx3C2xP94KTxR hhEKGWb4DNfsrODe1ICXvfFTM2p42x/2E1gEjphgGgMQ//o9djM2ccQ6tgVXBypTkC+KrFRs6 gG8ms4Rpdf4GpuDUxcJgPAz2d3rRaGKr2Ms2gzIvwvQhEtJmpMY91C0uAG6RCEx9yhVMyR7/f vQ+GeKYOM8Q8SJ8tP0KnnyITA+MofAMJLvyDWC2htQ4DhuVAQaINU8l6E8+2HIeFbizL5Bc0u hZmP8itXtlNcibVLr9v6VQnbRqaj3szZf+Gn001DXWFLwfBCPeHIprqrHLQl7bw7xZBaIModn lieYdjrF8mc3ImHmmg097ojwny9tIUW8kAwaRduJMIXHCFxuGvC5Yv05B57Pp+vHVg63cllNN nokVKFaUGBFaN3bcf5+Y0qzX2j4PXxy+DEfs9Gq85fvRh8QEm6PmoMUSvpxpEEwFUB9phoQl+ 9RSqUzjh1ZwRtZ51OmwDbJOjRwO5VMkbG+moPMdsUw/fmsBCxzUVwEK1CJg3o+RH3wQbmb9cC J01bApxBnE2eYyhJ27WIWsTL+0lPY6tmus6bwSRBrvf7EG/lxXzfF9t6AnJXKwWuvHBHnvLCG gGspUwQWWqOJbW7asE0mvsN/yrWW9u6LUE4Nqa4ebta65/O7VxHSvgHNr3zyPH47toIGbhpL X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:140447 Archived-At: > When a buffer is deleted, all the markers that point to it get their > buffer wiped out, so I think the above method cannot work, unless you > replace all NULL buffer pointers with the cloned buffer -- which will > probably be too much. > > And remember that markers without any buffer do not get adjusted, so > their position will quickly become incorrect or even outside the > cloned buffer's text, and then such markers will become useless. So > we cannot delay this until the marker is accessed by some Lisp. Note that I've been referring only to your earlier The problem I was thinking of is when buffer-local variables in buffer A hold markers whose buffer is A; then we clone buffer B from A, and then we kill buffer A. Now the markers in the cloned buffer point to a dead buffer (or actually point nowhere). I'm not sure why this can be a problem because when we delete a base buffer then the manual says that Killing the base buffer effectively kills the indirect buffer in that it cannot ever again be the current buffer. but in fact we kill any indirect buffer before killing its base buffer. Or I'm misreading the code of `kill-buffer' martin