Werner Almesberger <[email protected]> writes: > Michael Trimarchi wrote: >> A lot of this bug was fixed in this commit >> 9c4451ff31b937a478f3d3eabef30b71cbe12b12. >> I hope that it not indroduce the regression #2277. Because move some >> thinks from destroy >> to close. > > This would also be my prime suspect for introducing the regression. > Anyway, I think that patch for #2277 should be good enough to solve > the most urgent issue. Optimization can be done later :)
But in #2277 you say that "I also see this with 9029dff1f370018665a6e2999632a34fd0518f4d," and that revision is from "Thu Feb 5 17:01:56 2009 +0000" much earlier than 9c4451ff31b937a478f3d3eabef30b71cbe12b12
