From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Pip Cet via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: igc, macOS avoiding signals Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 20:54:03 +0000 Message-ID: <8734i7edhm.fsf@protonmail.com> References: <799DDBC5-2C14-4476-B1E0-7BA2FE9E7901@toadstyle.org> <87ldvzg7vi.fsf@protonmail.com> <868qrzsojd.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5cffy8n.fsf@protonmail.com> <864j2nskup.fsf@gnu.org> <861pxrsk1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87v7v3eht9.fsf@protonmail.com> <86wmfjr44o.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Pip Cet Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30458"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: spd@toadstyle.org, gerd.moellmann@gmail.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 06:39:07 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 1tRm15-0007kr-FL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:39:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRm0H-0004BX-Gd; Sun, 29 Dec 2024 00:38:17 -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 1tRdpB-0000TF-LM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:54:18 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-4316.protonmail.ch ([185.70.43.16]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRdp6-0007Y5-DO; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:54:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1735419249; x=1735678449; bh=ciRbees4/GlojBGhgWH+ymok7Att0gP4FaBvPPLvVxM=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector:List-Unsubscribe:List-Unsubscribe-Post; b=oinprZooQ98VBHOajmeHIF62QjUuLTI1Sk2rDNROER/k+FAAXbqaZGi+HzgfLpjoK Ya2LTEcYVU+HO5igeLxU+Udd8c+vZawg79nzqyMtaK3Mv9dCCSqjkDSKY4ey2B+0xD uIUnHoh3rITPoDPVgj/7FcCAXVBVvzJJJGjKVQ8M/GMbi7AqdTRZYXo0TO4UqsuKqb 9jP6HfMXjvURcaZQNOrUssKiPo1a4WimpKubf7XZv2FA6Zkf2SQAzZKXiILBMoAQf0 EuiEgo1POg9aQtn9XwibygToq4jIE6+Mxeqfvc154K2lxGDSyJxduV+LOEvOHita4N 25BHJTEcfUyNw== In-Reply-To: <86wmfjr44o.fsf@gnu.org> Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: 70affbea2f36ba7c07df826cdbaec59969c6f3e6 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.43.16; envelope-from=pipcet@protonmail.com; helo=mail-4316.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -10 X-Spam_score: -1.1 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 00:38:16 -0500 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:327306 Archived-At: "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 19:20:40 +0000 >> From: Pip Cet >> Cc: spd@toadstyle.org, gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> >> > But OTOH, if this delaying of a signal affects responsiveness, then >> > all we need to do is exempt SIGSEGV from being delayed, right? This >> > signal-delay mechanism was invented for SIGPROF, SIGCHLD, and SIGALRM, >> > but there's no reason to delay SIGSEGV. >> >> SIGSEGV is never delayed in any proposal I'm aware of. > > The call to gc_signal_handler_can_run is inside > deliver_process_signal. Are you saying that deliver_process_signal is > not called for SIGSEGV? MPS installs its own SIGSEGV handler which doesn't go through deliver_process_signal. Only if it fails, the Emacs handler which does go through deliver_process_signal is restored for the final SIGSEGV which will then terminate Emacs. >> > And AFAIU, on macOS there's no SIGSEGV anyway, is that right? So why >> > does this delaying affect responsiveness? >> >> Possibly SIGPOLL. > > We don't need to block SIGPOLL, either. Its handler is safe, the same > as SIGIO. Thanks! That's good to know, and that's why we pass the signal number to gc_signal_handler_can_run. Pip