[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep)
From: |
Chris Hall |
Subject: |
Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep) |
Date: |
Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:20:25 -1000 |
User-agent: |
GNUMail (Version 1.2.0) |
On 2008-02-03 10:52:46 -1000 Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> wrote:
Chris Hall wrote:
I think there are 2 issues here: the presence of the value '0x0' in
a field
meant to contain a pointer to a face_cache struct, and what the
presence of
that value causes to happen.
To me it seems that while almost certainly the former is an
Emacs.app
issue, the latter is more likely an Emacs 23.0.60 issue. I don't
know for
sure, since I'm not an Emacs or Emacs.app hacker.
I am aware that sometimes some classes of errors are perhaps best
allowed
to happen and to result in catastrophic failures like segmentation
faults,
but in this case, were this one of my programs I'd probably consider
it a
bug.
If it is a bug to have 0 in that field, why would you hide the bug by
avoiding a crash when it is 0?
So it could terminate gracefully while reporting that it had a 0 in
that field, along with any other available information that might
prove useful in helping to solve the problem? Maybe offer to run in
text mode with that information made available in a buffer with a bug
report?
I didn't mention anything about 'hiding' it, did I?
With the patch I supplied, at least the user knows there is an issue
with realizing the default face, rather than SIGSEGV (11).
But of course, and as always, YMMV.
Obviously, the possibility of the default face not being realized was
anticipated by somebody, and considered serious enough to terminate
execution -- there was already in place a check for exactly that, and
the possibility of issuing a message and then deliberately 'erroring
out' of the program if it hadn't been realized.
but in this case,
For whatever reason, there is instead no properly initialized
'face_cache' struct available, if I am interpreting the '0x0'
correctly.
AFAIK, the '0x0' is the result of an *un*anticipated case leading to
the same check. I don't know, and probably never will, because as I
mentioned, I am unaware of the larger program execution context, and I
am time-constrained with respect to learning sufficiently the Emacs
internals required to make that determination.
Cheers!
Chris Hall
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), (continued)
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2008/02/04
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), Chris Hall, 2008/02/04
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), William Xu, 2008/02/04
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2008/02/04
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), William Xu, 2008/02/04
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), Chris Hall, 2008/02/05
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2008/02/05
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), Chris Hall, 2008/02/06
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), Chris Hall, 2008/02/05
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), Jason Rumney, 2008/02/03
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep),
Chris Hall <=
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), William Xu, 2008/02/03
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), Jason Rumney, 2008/02/04
- Re: 23.0.60; Seg fault in xfaces.c at line 6703 (Emacs.app on GNUstep), Chris Hall, 2008/02/04