From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Some experience with the igc branch Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:09:47 -0800 Message-ID: <108c9575-f07b-41af-9626-3622d16e4cf5@cs.ucla.edu> References: <87o713wwsi.fsf@telefonica.net> <87ldw6as5f.fsf@protonmail.com> <86o7112rnq.fsf@gnu.org> <867c7p2nz4.fsf@gnu.org> <861pxx2lh7.fsf@gnu.org> <86ldw40xbo.fsf@gnu.org> <86a5cj2a0e.fsf@gnu.org> <867c7n28sf.fsf@gnu.org> <877c7n962e.fsf@gmail.com> <8634ib24gp.fsf@gnu.org> <875xn75w7u.fsf@gmail.com> <86ttaryn1x.fsf@gnu.org> <877c7mzxbw.fsf@gmail.com> <861pxuzt61.fsf@gnu.org> <87wmfmy6mq.fsf@gmail.com> <86ttaqxybk.fsf@gnu.org> <867c7ly2v8.fsf@gnu.org> <86v7v4ut8w.fsf@gnu.org> <86seq7qbvu.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24959"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cc: eller.helmut@gmail.com, gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, pipcet@protonmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 29 20:10:18 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1tRyg6-0006Mh-8X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 20:10:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRyfn-0003KN-5c; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:09:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRyfh-0003K2-Ax for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:09:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRyff-0000Ns-6t; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:09:52 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71343C005176; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:09:48 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10032) with ESMTP id eS9Ywylz2XaQ; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:09:48 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697B23C026D7F; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:09:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.cs.ucla.edu 697B23C026D7F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cs.ucla.edu; s=9D0B346E-2AEB-11ED-9476-E14B719DCE6C; t=1735499388; bh=2sGBYc/Qnv4ZzyjkDCER03VbE6AW4d68Wdl5mN81Kkc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:To:From; b=queIM2vXI1C6+ubwLtbjcCD7tABAtTkfEgXjAcfbVU/6lQv0lbqz0kWYC0EzBTmgY ARNIWsOsWNYqVANH0tK0ztqsWXsuOqrgkGSpBKzuMYUNytL/h/WmIog8fI2syVdjX+ ACx5h3sgLOMS66TD24a39UNwjoG4EOouADYWBUcPcbzFy8/c/LHheQ6amuHg+a9BbE lPuzMU20I7kgDcJTMX2oETChlv3CfQ25b/PAOTy/Fe45QrJHsA9PgD7rOlJmSXIrOy Wj7DzkTOP6PRtZAhYUSsyDjve/DSGxV5FWZuserjhnnqbR+ibwvPi6J/91H2BDaNX/ o2nM8j0rewfdA== X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at mail.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from mail.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10026) with ESMTP id uoFXNpeRkNXN; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:09:48 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.102] (unknown [47.154.28.214]) by mail.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C1283C005176; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:09:48 -0800 (PST) Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <86seq7qbvu.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=131.179.128.66; envelope-from=eggert@cs.ucla.edu; helo=mail.cs.ucla.edu X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:327360 Archived-At: On 12/28/24 21:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Yes, that's the purpose of the global lock: a Lisp thread can only run > if it acquires the lock. OS signals are therefore ignored if a non-main Lisp thread is buggy and holds that global lock indefinitely. I assume this is the expected fallout from such a bug. I don't see this issue documented explicitly in doc/elisp/threads.texi. Should it be?