bug#13007: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:23:37 +0400
> From: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@yandex.ru>
> CC: 13007@debbugs.gnu.org, lekktu@gmail.com, drew.adams@oracle.com
> 
> On 11/29/2012 08:46 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > For starters, can you tell what triggered the assertion violation in
> > Juanma's case?  IOW, how did we wind up in a situation where (AFAIU)
> > the selected window displays a buffer other than the current one?
> 
> IIUC, here is the sequence:
> 
> Function set_window_buffer (W, B, ...) is called where W is selected_window
> and XBUFFER (B) != current_buffer. This function temporary sets current
> buffer to XBUFFER (B) to run hooks, and then restore old current_buffer [1].
> So, on exit we have XBUFFER (XWINDOW (selected_window)->buffer) != 
> current_buffer,
> and these gets _finally_ synchronized only when read_key_sequence is called 
> with
> fix_current_buffer == true [2]. If redisplay is invoked between [1] and [2],
> its routines may see the condition which was eassert'ed; _finally_ means
> that some redisplay routines may do the synchronization temporary and
> then restore original value of current buffer (see pos_visible_p for example).

OK.  So what do you suggest, in practical terms?  Are you saying that
we should use BUF_MODIFF(XBUFFER (w->buffer)) instead of MODIFF and
BUF_OVERLAY_MODIFF(XBUFFER (w->buffer)) instead of OVERLAY_MODIFF
inside window_outdated?  Or do you suggest something else?

I'm okay with using BUF_* macros in window_outdated.

My reading of redisplay_internal is that it goes by the selected
window, not assuming that the buffer of that window is the current
buffer.  But when redisplay_window is called, it temporarily selects
the window's buffer as current buffer, and all the functions called by
redisplay_window then rely on that.

So if window_outdated is called not from redisplay_window or its
subroutines, we cannot assume that current_buffer and the selected
window's buffer are the same.  Also, for minibuffer windows and
pseudo-windows, we may need more care, but I'm not sure.