[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#18180: 24.3.92; Segfault in mark_object
From: |
Dmitry Antipov |
Subject: |
bug#18180: 24.3.92; Segfault in mark_object |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Aug 2014 13:15:32 +0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 |
On 08/04/2014 10:46 AM, Mat Smiglarski wrote:
I have not been able to reproduce this by automating the calls to
stress-speed-read.
Reproduced with (dotimes (i 100) (stress-speed-read (current-buffer)))).
Ugh, it seems that we never initialize undo-list of indirect buffer. You can
use
this trivial fix just to avoid crash:
=== modified file 'src/buffer.c'
--- src/buffer.c 2014-07-27 13:21:30 +0000
+++ src/buffer.c 2014-08-04 09:06:08 +0000
@@ -825,6 +825,7 @@
name = Fcopy_sequence (name);
set_string_intervals (name, NULL);
bset_name (b, name);
+ bset_undo_list (b, BVAR (b->base_buffer, undo_list));
reset_buffer (b);
reset_buffer_local_variables (b, 1);
But this bug raises an interesting question: should an indirect buffer's undo
list
be always the same as the one of its base buffer?
Dmitry
bug#18180: 24.3.92; Segfault in mark_object, Dmitry Antipov, 2014/08/04