Hi All! Could someone with GCPRO expertise please review what I came up with. I found this via crashes caused by C-c p (toggle-profiling) with NEW_GC=0 GCPRO1 (harg); in a function that only ever uses barg seemed a clear typo. However, I was still crashing after running with an XEmacs containing the change to GCPRO1 (barg); So I sent on to protect the other argumetents as well. I still saw crashes with this complete patch, but haven't used a NEW_GC=0 XEmacs lately. Please advise, Adrian xemacs-21.5-clean source patch: Diff command: cvs -f -z3 -q diff -u -w -N Files affected: src/eval.c Index: src/eval.c =================================================================== RCS file: /pack/xemacscvs/XEmacs/xemacs/src/eval.c,v retrieving revision 1.92 diff -u -w -r1.92 eval.c --- src/eval.c 27 Feb 2006 16:29:24 -0000 1.92 +++ src/eval.c 26 Mar 2006 22:33:46 -0000 ＠＠ -1862,7 +1862,7 ＠＠ { int speccount = specpdl_depth(); struct catchtag c; - struct gcpro gcpro1, gcpro2, gcpro3; + struct gcpro gcpro1, gcpro2, gcpro3, gcpro4, gcpro5; #if 0 /* FSFmacs */ c.tag = Qnil; ＠＠ -1920,12 +1920,12 ＠＠ #else Vcondition_handlers = c.tag; #endif - GCPRO1 (harg); /* Somebody has to gc-protect */ + GCPRO2 (barg, c.val); /* Somebody has to gc-protect */ c.val = ((*bfun) (barg)); UNGCPRO; /* Once we change `catchlist' below, the stuff in c will not be GCPRO'd. */ - GCPRO3 (harg, c.val, c.tag); + GCPRO5 (harg, c.val, c.tag, c.actual_tag, c.backtrace); catchlist = c.next; check_catchlist_sanity (); -- Adrian Aichner mailto:adrian＠xemacs.org http://www.xemacs.org/