[debbugs-tracker] bug#12500: closed (24.2.50; (search-failed "\n debug(") in debugger)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 29 Jan 2016 20:12:40 +0100
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#12500: 24.2.50; (search-failed "\n  debug(") in 
debugger
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #12500,
regarding 24.2.50; (search-failed "\n  debug(") in debugger
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
12500: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12500
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> 24.2.50; (search-failed "\n  debug(") in debugger
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:34:29 +0200
>
>
>
>
> When stepping, the (search-forward "\n  debug(") in
> debugger-setup-buffer sometimes fails.  To reproduce this 
>
> 1. eval this
>
>   (progn
>    (defun foo ()
>      (debug nil 1)
>      (debug nil 2))
>    (setq toggle-debug-on-error t)
>    (foo))
>
> 2. The debugger pops up with the message:
>    Debugger entered: (1)
>      foo()
>
> 3. At the line with foo(), press d (i.e. debugger-step-through).
>
> 4. Now the buffer starts with:
>    Debugger entered--beginning evaluation of function call form:
>    * (debug nil 2)
>
> 5. Now press c (i.e. debugger-continue) on the line with the *.
>
> 6. The debugger enters recursively with the error:
>    Debugger entered--Lisp error: (search-failed "\n debug(")
>
>
>
> In GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.20.1)
>  of 2012-09-22 on ix
> Bzr revision: 110128 address@hidden
> Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.10707000
> Configured using:
>  `configure '--with-jpeg=no' '--with-gif=no' '--with-tiff=no''
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#12500: 24.2.50; (search-failed "\n  debug(") in debugger
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 29 Jan 2016 20:12:40 +0100
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> mu4e 0.9.13; emacs 25.1.50.1
>
>
>
>
> On 2016-01-29, at 19:37, Helmut Eller <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 29 2016, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> >
> >>> The patch below seems to fix the problem in your test case; can you
> >>> confirm that it fixes your problem?
> >>
> >> Just wondering: should this bug be closed?
> >
> > Closing it is ok with me.
>
> As you wish. ;-)
>
> > Helmut
>
> Thanks, and best regards,
>
> -- 
> Marcin Borkowski
> http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
> Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
> Adam Mickiewicz University
>
>
> --- End Message ---