From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-26 9bf66c6: Don't run FOR_EACH_FRAME when there's no frame left (Bug#29961) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:26:37 +0100 Message-ID: <5A376DAD.5030305@gmx.at> References: <20171215073120.7671.79446@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20171215073122.52703204D3@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <5A34119D.6000407@gmx.at> <5A34EA93.1050501@gmx.at> <9d0b9c22-d386-cd0a-3947-a44d58b1ee0e@cs.ucla.edu> <5A364B09.4020905@gmx.at> <84451444-be0f-2cbe-1e08-90c042c2c14b@cs.ucla.edu> 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 1513581975 5459 195.159.176.226 (18 Dec 2017 07:26:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:26:15 +0000 (UTC) To: Paul Eggert , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 18 08:26:11 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1eQpoR-00013G-6b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:26:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57115 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eQpqP-0004Uq-GF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:28:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42628) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eQppU-0004Ti-7w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:27:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eQppR-00066E-2c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:27:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:53561) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eQppQ-00065M-Oy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:27:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([213.162.73.78]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lk8CY-1f1oTD0IY6-00c65k; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:27:05 +0100 In-Reply-To: <84451444-be0f-2cbe-1e08-90c042c2c14b@cs.ucla.edu> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ZfSL05I0VMAC5vbMWDuypyv5wLN8S7EL8RKYw6MVDfU02DseTGU yTHmkaMU4egxpZXaCX7Npw7b+gWbw2tu+sose4r8iuE53cBjHNo4LK1wg2+AnYhdH9HaD5t LNyKTUcEvq0VyQXGvlnCTLBrDKo3YpgRMTNcMcn069eN+B/Kloshy1GrmjWlwAj8DN9xmkM elHejT5thTVVxGMgduAXQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:H7OnpEhPRCI=:tgIoo+a/GreVek+eH6o85h Wutt+XmRHZrxI7M7IdyFlGXRX5wmlLx1WgNLYQ0L+PZm6NKKsoGSsAMNtNaj8RPGNEYoD5W8U dWgCujfXA7o2FjRObBExJIfH+r9U8L7PAbScapqSdW1OODS9rPU1X2+jlX6eYK0b9DtbUBSfn pDXdxSIq7O8rMyJ3+OC/BiIF64rQRNiQL6f9wr5EIB1wHO20lOo79SbRvOP/uhsdm7MKJv/tA 1Hudh2MbD5vOMuyOAht9H5mlmAkxxOL9p2G1JW0QEUjuo7BU3dAKnu7einGwudt+ZEPDKcGit 0H7tuzuDKpwD/fJ64D5tPJrwNHy2lr5KzqIHQR5edAmR5QoLTJvhMUMAetSzhLRe0H55m6EGZ M1q0DrQ988Dnup3fl1IfsZooIZpDtBjm1CFqhpjxpt9x6T/KT2KAFi/C7XZiZuFXO98IvkCjY 5gqzSznzqxqKOsX7qmpPK7veUXqH1axvHF0E8s/EQz0lhyWNgWbgTdYvtXSliXH2x+IG89q6l xwLMHwPwIaQyv8gwqMDtJJBWrRX1morqkDxGLYCDwsVk4WWp4kBIcJkOYPFWDqEXjQyFV90dQ hdKPi5hpwwWql4UTxkhDWtwNgNQ2tAM6dCwYNbmoTRNfRLekwghCSup9l6W4Bn6eBbENISh4h XY8oYVEZc8/HaPtyPLPtVJxFnep88W8QuucGZuZABv4BC265KozKLZk+MNysRXhpMVKasBQne KORQal4v8a/1JQ7KngSFrQ9UkbO6jiZGc8GXzWWoWF3gijstH3VPRklU/giG0XfAPvlQlfAF X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.15 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:221206 Archived-At: >> eassume (CONSP (Vframe_list)); >> >> now means that we can assume that `frame-list' is non-empty. Isn't that >> assumption incorrect in the scenario of the bug we're discussing here? > > Yes and no. The assumption is incorrect for this particular bug. But > it is correct for the two instances of eassume (CONSP (Vframe_list)) > that I resurrected. Those two instances have no connection with the bug. It's the one in delete_frame that caused the segfault. martin