From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Elusive assertion failure related to completion Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:59:56 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87my5d3bvn.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <4A9CF0AD.2090202@gmx.at> <4A9D58EE.1040400@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1251885728 17594 80.91.229.12 (2 Sep 2009 10:02:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:02:08 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 02 12:02:01 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MimfA-00058K-MI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:02:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40906 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MimfA-0005qE-55 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:02:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mimde-0004oo-Ra for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:00:26 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MimdZ-0004m2-Qz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:00:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55163 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MimdZ-0004lw-KT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:00:21 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:38104) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MimdZ-0004IC-0I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:00:21 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MimdW-0004hW-Jg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:00:18 +0200 Original-Received: from p5b2c23f6.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.35.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:00:18 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c23f6.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:00:18 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c23f6.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:mVipyj+aZVW0IadIvcUKzHx0Zmo= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:114985 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> Could you check if it's triggerd by the xassert >>> >>>              xassert (NILP (leaf_windows[i]->hchild) >>>                       && NILP (leaf_windows[i]->vchild)); > >> No, it's not :-( > >> I think the assertion failure is a read herring; it seems like some >> kind of memory corruption. In fact, sometimes I just get a crash in >> other unrelated places. > > Yes, looking at the code, I can't think of a way this data could be > anything else than a symbol at that point, so it smells like > memory corruption. Concerning "at that point", let me quote from DEBUG: ** When you are trying to analyze failed assertions, it will be essential to compile Emacs either completely without optimizations or at least (when using GCC) with the -fno-crossjumping option. Failure to do so may make the compiler recycle the same abort call for all assertions in a given function, rendering the stack backtrace useless for identifying the specific failed assertion. -- David Kastrup