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 11:30:22 -0800 Message-ID: <3056b6f4-1986-4fb2-b961-aa371e6016b3@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> <108c9575-f07b-41af-9626-3622d16e4cf5@cs.ucla.edu> <86r05qpa7e.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="16292"; 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 20:31:24 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 1tRz0W-00046Q-HN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 20:31:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRyzu-00087n-WB; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:30:47 -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 1tRyzm-00087N-T1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:30:40 -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 1tRyzc-0002gU-Ch; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:30:35 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B003C005176; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:30:23 -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 WVxeUUZrRpoL; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:30:23 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026273C026D7F; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:30:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.cs.ucla.edu 026273C026D7F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cs.ucla.edu; s=9D0B346E-2AEB-11ED-9476-E14B719DCE6C; t=1735500623; bh=O6mUZv+/GeQ9ZNT1VpxOPzygHINj+YkxldUryjkjiho=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:To:From; b=Adv4iXjem7gcvJ8lFBgI9lBRTI1ZEERkVexJUtVBSLgCUJUMK+M+9Lgjx390sU1ob sLLxjtNPHIjAIt91GZuPi0uTpFpN9NY97GmtLMUBMHpYvr7zAHdSTZB33yXx6S46qJ YsrJBI1Tr+R734oBuwZbhzSVGZrG128W9RVQ9q/z1HEBKuJ3yJMtGTgyb5FELcya4j w38zeR2D4Z0VhT8pDBy37NFhlPi1bV5xetT2v3F4/awo3kyPLfJeD3nDqgSXy47eWc IHAuQlW3J1s6GuS/cb6jjuw3GUu8rxQdcQicKufxVzb2spZiytiIw4tokLtNa3ICdE kJWfcznqNPZGQ== 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 cEkN4TFp2CUo; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:30:22 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.102] (unknown [47.154.28.214]) by mail.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C314F3C005176; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:30:22 -0800 (PST) Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <86r05qpa7e.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:327363 Archived-At: On 12/29/24 11:20, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > if a non-main thread's Lisp function keeps running forever, > never calling any primitives that release the lock, that thread will > run forever, and the main thread will never get a chance. Lisp > programs that cause this are considered buggy, of course. > >> I don't see this issue documented explicitly in doc/elisp/threads.texi. >> Should it be? > I will have an opinion when I better understand what "it" is in this > case. I hope this is just a misunderstanding. It's the issue summarized in your paragraph that I quoted above, along with its consequences, which are obvious to someone who knows how Emacs Lisp threads work but not so obvious to newcomers who may have several notions of "threads" rattling around in their heads. It's not just that the main thread never gets a chance: it's that signals are effectively ignored. Does the same thing happen with C-g? If so, I'd think that should also be documented in threads.texi.