From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>
Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, 14062@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#14062: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:08:06 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83d2tv57p5.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <516C5358.8040709@gmx.at>
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:22:00 +0200
> From: martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>
> CC: drew.adams@oracle.com, lekktu@gmail.com, 14062@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > But for nil, BUFFERP will return zero, and the code that uses XBUFFER
> > should not be called, IMO.
> [...]
> > But the uninitialized contents field should be zero, no? Again, it
> > should not pass the BUFFERP test.
> >
> > So the mystery still stands.
>
> You mean that the w->contents argument of XBUFFER _always_ passes the
> BUFFERP test first and then fails at the assertion in XBUFFER?
Yes, see the definition of the WINDOW_WANTS_HEADER_LINE_P macro, where
we have:
&& BUFFERP (W->contents) \
&& !NILP (BVAR (XBUFFER (W->contents), header_line_format)) \
Should a condition be always evaluated left to right? Or is a
processor allowed to issue these two parts in parallel, if it has more
than one processing unit available?
> How can that make sense?
Exactly my question. But the evidence is unequivocal: the assertion
in XBUFFER is the one that aborts. I disassembled the code to make
sure I got that correctly. This was an unoptimized build, so any
tricks with folding several different calls into one don't happen.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-16 6:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-26 23:33 bug#14062: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt Drew Adams
2013-03-27 6:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-03-27 9:45 ` Dani Moncayo
2013-03-27 12:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-03-27 13:39 ` Drew Adams
2013-03-28 9:25 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-04-15 7:35 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-04-15 11:54 ` Juanma Barranquero
2013-04-15 12:30 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-04-15 12:40 ` martin rudalics
2013-04-15 14:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-04-15 15:53 ` martin rudalics
2013-04-15 16:21 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-04-15 19:22 ` martin rudalics
2013-04-16 6:08 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2013-04-22 16:04 ` Drew Adams
2013-04-22 16:12 ` Juanma Barranquero
2013-04-22 18:05 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-04-22 18:18 ` Drew Adams
2013-05-04 10:27 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-05-04 12:27 ` martin rudalics
2013-05-04 12:33 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-05-04 12:45 ` martin rudalics
2013-05-04 13:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-05-04 18:59 ` martin rudalics
2013-05-04 14:38 ` Drew Adams
2013-03-27 13:37 ` Drew Adams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83d2tv57p5.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=14062@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=lekktu@gmail.com \
--cc=rudalics@gmx.at \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.