On 01/04/2016 07:24 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
>> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:12:29 -0800
>>
>>> I think something along that lines would suffice, yes. Admittedly I
>>> didn't quite follow what you wrote (perhaps some text got elided?). But
>>> the main point, as I understand it, is that we needn't worry about
>>> having a stack-overflow check inside the stack-overflow handler, because
>>> we can insist that the stack-overflow handler be tightly-enough
>>> controlled so that it won't recurse indefinitely.
>>
>> Yes: do as little as possible in the segfault handler and signal an
>> error the normal way at the next safe opportunity, if one arises before
>> we fully exhaust the stack.
> 
> You cannot do that when the stack is exhausted.  You will almost
> certainly crash if you try.

That's why we have the alternate signal stack.