[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#69358: 30.0.50; Segmentation fault: compare_overlays (v1=v1@entry=0x
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#69358: 30.0.50; Segmentation fault: compare_overlays (v1=v1@entry=0x0, v2=v2@entry=0x7fffffffd510) |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Feb 2024 16:59:59 +0200 |
> From: Bruno Barbier <perso.bruno.barbier@free.fr>
> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:07:31 +0100
>
>
> Running emacs from the current master, I'm getting the following
> segfault:
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x00005555556e7c14 in compare_overlays (v1=v1@entry=0x0,
> v2=v2@entry=0x7fffffffd510) at buffer.c:3188
> 3188 if (s1->priority != s2->priority)
>
> I didn't try to reproduce with "-Q" as it might be tricky to reproduce
> (Emacs is stable, works for hours, only one specific workflow is
> triggering the crash).
>
> Find below the output of 'bt full' and 'xbacktrace' and other bug report
> infos.
>
> Let me know if you need me to collect more information to help you solve
> this bug.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> ┌────
> │ bt full
> │ #0 0x00005555556e7c14 in compare_overlays (v1=v1@entry=0x0,
> │ v2=v2@entry=0x7fffffffd510) at buffer.c:3188
> │ s1 = 0x0
> │ s2 = 0x7fffffffd510
> │ #1 0x000055555574159e in Fget_pos_property (position=position@entry=0x3d2,
> │ prop=prop@entry=0xa3b0, object=object@entry=0x555559c2a1dd)
> │ at editfns.c:328
> │ ol = <optimized out>
> │ this = 0x7fffffffd510
> │ itree_local_iter_ = {
> │ node = 0x555558172440,
> │ begin = 243,
> │ end = 245,
> │ otick = 1,
> │ order = ITREE_ASCENDING
> │ }
> │ itree_iter_ = 0x7fffffffd4e0
> │ posn = 244
> │ obuf = 0x555559c2a1d8
> │ node = 0x55555a63ce40
> │ tem = 0x55555a9b61c3
> │ items = {{
> │ overlay = 0x55555a5f312d,
> │ beg = 217,
> │ end = 244,
> │ priority = 12,
> │ spriority = 0
> │ }, {
> │ overlay = 0x4000000006000000,
> │ beg = 4611686019484352512,
> │ end = 3,
> │ priority = 93825078009008,
> │ spriority = 93824994725839
> │ }}
> │ result = 0x0
> │ b = 0x555559c2a1d8
> │ res = 0x55555a9c1623
Adding Stefan, who made the changes there last.
Stefan, there's some kind of thinko in the code: result seems to stay
at its initial NULL value. Or did I miss something?