From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Jan D." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: alarm_signal_handler is called too frequently Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:41:02 +0100 Message-ID: <9AF2796A-2EB2-11D9-A7C3-000D93505B76@swipnet.se> References: <7E7ABFB6-2693-11D9-9BC4-000D93505B76@swipnet.se> <41813425.2010001@swipnet.se> <4181EA7E.2020309@swipnet.se> <4185FC85.70100@swipnet.se> <41880288.2070706@swipnet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1099608170 15222 80.91.229.6 (4 Nov 2004 22:42:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:42:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 04 23:42:41 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CPqJU-0006V1-00 for ; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:42:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CPqRe-0008GB-Lg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:51:06 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CPqRP-0008Cd-GT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:50:51 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CPqRO-0008Bo-9W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:50:50 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CPqRN-0008BC-W0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:50:50 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.54.107.73] (helo=mxfep02.bredband.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CPqIs-0007c1-ID; Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:42:03 -0500 Original-Received: from coolsville.localdomain ([83.226.180.220] [83.226.180.220]) by mxfep02.bredband.com with ESMTP id <20041104224200.VYW44.mxfep02.bredband.com@coolsville.localdomain>; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:42:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: Original-To: rms@gnu.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:29445 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:29445 I made my question very unclear, I'll try again. Sorry if this is obvious for others, but I just don't understand. Say we have three functions, aL, bL and cL, all written in Lisp (hence the L). Now, obviously aL calling bL calling cL is safe (<-- denotes return, not cL calls bL). 1: aL bL cL | --> | | | | --> | | | <-- | | <-- | | If we replace bL with code in C instead, is this safe? 2: aL bC cL | --> | | | | --> | | | <-- | | <-- | | I think it must be, there are places in Emacs where C code calls Lisp functions. Say now that bC calls cL within BLOCK/UNBLOCK_INPUT: 3: aL bC cL | --> | | | BLOCK | | | --> | | | <-- | | UNBLOCK | | <-- | | Why is this unsafe, if 2 was safe (if indeed it is)? It is not as though the signal handler is calling Lisp code, that is obviously unsafe. But when a dialog or popup menu is popped up, the signal handler is not involved in processing X events, it is all done inside bC. I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I just don't get it. Jan D.