From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc. Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:52:32 -0800 Message-ID: <5678D710.9010406@dancol.org> References: <83mvu1x6t3.fsf@gnu.org> <565779CD.80405@cs.ucla.edu> <83io4nuc68.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3iht93x.fsf@gnu.org> <838u4psznr.fsf@gnu.org> <56772054.8010401@cs.ucla.edu> <83zix4scgf.fsf@gnu.org> <5677DBC9.6030307@cs.ucla.edu> <83io3rst2r.fsf@gnu.org> <567841A6.4090408@cs.ucla.edu> <567844B9.2050308@dancol.org> <5678CD07.8080209@cs.ucla.edu> <5678D3AF.7030101@dancol.org> <5678D620.6070000@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CJFDeP1QMS2s8MgA7T1aWRW1E5O0OFWsw" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1450759975 25787 80.91.229.3 (22 Dec 2015 04:52:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 04:52:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, p.stephani2@gmail.com, tzz@lifelogs.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 22 05:52:49 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aBEwI-00059j-7U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 05:52:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48708 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aBEwH-0000MU-Ib for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:52:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42712) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aBEwF-0000MP-1N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:52:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aBEwA-0001mi-1F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:52:42 -0500 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:54867) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aBEw9-0001mc-OP; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:52:37 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=+LrYt+1Ie1iV529ZCyDmWvRCm3zuZTWwbPUT+5dChhc=; b=EBwbelWk7ctVPEQN1vusnkmqvjSORVwcxjYfxhZxE2mBse3hPKdFJbSypnjeT7+q7cet6LThgeDIRc8oPdAlM015CtUxAveYbYD6NZi6BBG12ZdMwh9IDDJDUZF3t0lJj48rAXLItNm/CSdlfuClxcxnXb+UW/r3RPRFhpsyjgzZ6sBqRitvgI+KM4SidEBLYW3iE1mrIjEYaZJrVDOkDN9CTg8fPHEkWJtBjMsQ3rQyhCx2G3SL6aZ/qy6jE3gjvzxyL8BL4Rseqwu0TK3QsUZwLqt0P6e2DXdw6j/zHMN10RfqewKD11ay2fQgMQpAkKj9uNmY69tqpPZGAgomCQ==; Original-Received: from c-67-161-115-4.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([67.161.115.4] helo=[192.168.1.210]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aBEw8-0003xJ-MS; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:52:36 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 In-Reply-To: <5678D620.6070000@cs.ucla.edu> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:196641 Archived-At: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --CJFDeP1QMS2s8MgA7T1aWRW1E5O0OFWsw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/21/2015 08:48 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > Daniel Colascione wrote: >> I'd rather >> Emacs just die on C stack overflow > > That would certainly be easier to implement! But as a user I would not > find it acceptable. You find it acceptable in most other programs. What problem are we trying to solve with this overflow checking? We should do something about unbound recursion in Lisp, but in C? Why? We expect a much higher level of robustness in the C code. Besides, we already crash if we overflow the stack while we're GCing. >> except when we know we're running >> Lisp in such a way that we know we can recover. > > I'm afraid that's not good enough, as stack overflow can occur while > running C code. Yes, and the proper response to stack overflow in C code should be to crash. We shouldn't be allocating stack without bound in C. --CJFDeP1QMS2s8MgA7T1aWRW1E5O0OFWsw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWeNcQAAoJEN4WImmbpWBlaF8P/RNXH+UAf19bQMPPKmjR+tVg QSb8p/0OQnb6JZv0Y3tmTiip4tKap7/rHrur0SRCZogibBoycuSs1Nmurhwf4zf2 vuOk0kA3e7lmBgbxOU25Zgt/AFvV05r9ImOnHTcd0q3yCTfype9AcH8EpSyDNbu4 SkXYmD5gUHciRKyrCsVwLCXqGRJNhKBAMJelxk2lbkZLHYAtvimiq/vyWj+IGisv QeN6lhRhBatqc+dx+cKyKAbhivOYdhc01i8LFZO6r/WPJeFL81w1ughS113/JjAb bpEejlXFVjiCTktmfsu7lH2IYT7muG6VnjnkUWV2KrWSlWbQQnVTGZgzHl4oESn7 M0KfqBBS6zEjY1B51Hn0p4XdAiOrqX/9vvpSVt9+DIekrvjdzh+c4zhGaWUo6rH/ VdEZ32+Fff74ohiprP9c6ec2n72jE5CExdE4yy69Pgd6sA6Twnm032gMTuG9Vd1o xDXFCRfeIzKRUq27oz0UwoaOa1TBo5ia44yiS1pMtlAbDxLXS1dv+Hgiyp56kPnt vutaO4A45zp3XzvLi3XXEGWnyS8wNjUknV1Rls1Z9yFXWUIMiqm7I1t2C8BZuTIo eSQTxnxGTxKx2+2s9ij90tjrTErhi02VEDnDLOrPEqALsA0Mr0iUXlTkAKygzTna usVOrcuwptvIGFl6RML1 =pl8D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CJFDeP1QMS2s8MgA7T1aWRW1E5O0OFWsw--