From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc. Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:46:54 +0200 Message-ID: <83bn92acnl.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83mvu1x6t3.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> <83mvt2qxm1.fsf@gnu.org> <56797CD9.8010706@cs.ucla.edu> <8337uuqsux.fsf@gnu.org> <5679DC83.70405@cs.ucla.edu> <83oadhp2mj.fsf@gnu.org> <567AD556.6020202@cs.ucla.edu> <567AD766.3060608@dancol.org> <567B5DAB.2000900@cs.ucla.edu> <83fuyromig.fsf@gnu.org> <567C25B1.3020101@dancol.org> <56892FD6.8040708@dancol.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451836042 20697 80.91.229.3 (3 Jan 2016 15:47:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 15:47:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, Emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 03 16:47:16 2016 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 1aFksF-0006PP-6I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:47:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42054 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFksB-0001xc-8d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:47:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54764) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkrx-0001xG-I4 for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:46:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkru-0006Cb-9u for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:46:57 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43103) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkru-0006CX-65; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:46:54 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2454 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aFkrt-0002Ak-Df; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:46:53 -0500 In-reply-to: <56892FD6.8040708@dancol.org> (message from Daniel Colascione on Sun, 3 Jan 2016 06:27:34 -0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:197452 Archived-At: > From: Daniel Colascione > Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 06:27:34 -0800 > > > Would someone be willing to summarize where we're at at this point with this > > discussion? It has been long and large enough that I'm no longer clear on > > exactly what it is that we do and don't want, and why. Just a summary of our > > major alternatives at this point, and the most significant points for and > > against each would be great. > > > [...] > Eli and Paul believe that "Emacs should never crash", and that > potentially saving user data is worth the risk of undefined behavior, > which they contend does not occur in practice. > > They are wrong. This code is terrible and that we should delete it > immediately. The code is fundamentally flawed and cannot be made to work > properly on any platform. No other program attempts to recover from > stack overflow this way. (I surveyed a few in a previous messages.) This is not a summary, this is propaganda. If you cannot summarize an issue objectively, please don't summarize at all. I deliberately avoided replying for fear of being too involved to write an objective summary. I wish you exercised the same self-restraint. John, please disregard this "summary".