From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: System calls without error checks in w32 Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 04:36:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: <83ocfytxhg.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxvitsay.fsf@gnu.org> <83ljb2tn6i.fsf@gnu.org> <83k4qmt7lb.fsf@gnu.org> <83hblpthpt.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275273410 20252 80.91.229.12 (31 May 2010 02:36:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 02:36:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 31 04:36:49 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OIuru-0003yB-QY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 May 2010 04:36:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44426 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OIurt-0008E2-TA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 May 2010 22:36:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55787 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OIurm-0008Bh-Ao for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 May 2010 22:36:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OIurl-0005rk-4B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 May 2010 22:36:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.160.169]:55834) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OIurk-0005rf-W3; Sun, 30 May 2010 22:36:37 -0400 Original-Received: by gyg4 with SMTP id 4so3053825gyg.0 for ; Sun, 30 May 2010 19:36:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=3TP1vFfaOc3b/HRsrfZzFRduvlzgQrL9j53tC+dis3g=; b=pE4C61XXfQlD57DujxMjPoh42e0wXdnpi9PJDO7HQF5JOqf1Ww3w8fxmzHBapB+vtQ 5JwMmItJ/hjNLnWtH3N1s23sHsrkNh79Vq77Eyr7Peyz6MG8fk0Img9NOLgCd48Yew/0 AROMvH0C5ghLkqVny5u/2ft32XdLf0e+PUkTo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=KrawsBW80ClIW8YinKYh08G/FBp0DhLypasCRZ2HBnIYFJUa42ti4zkuIFqBqi2l17 g51wxHfhXPcw01+0odEaGZB7XpoWTUeJwxTryUC05M/32/LP5LnLX45sgAEasY++qx9M hTI7LFJCPBYvILq56U6f/tR9tVv3zeirWaFRM= Original-Received: by 10.101.106.12 with SMTP id i12mr3846903anm.27.1275273395098; Sun, 30 May 2010 19:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.100.44.20 with HTTP; Sun, 30 May 2010 19:36:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:125385 Archived-At: On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 02:58, Lennart Borgman > wrote: > >> I don't think so. It is just much more difficult to track some of >> these. For example I know Drew recently wrote about problems when >> creating new frames. It is quite hard to both understand what is >> happening and what is a bug and what is not. > > Well, I'd say that should be the first step... Exactly. That is why debug output might be helpful. >> I just mean that the normal C code (i.e. not related to system calls) >> seems better checked on w32. > > Not sure what do you mean with "better checked". Obviously it is > easier to know what one of our own C functions is doing that what a > Windows system call does, so it's less likely that a return code from > a C function is ignored. Yes, but isn't it a really good reason to always check the return code from system calls? > I see no practical difference between my take of the situation > (regarding your patches) and yours. Maybe it is just me then. But I have thrown away a good deal of them just to get less work (even if some of them were bug fixes). >> I have an example where I create a frame contact a web page in >> pause.el. Is that specific enough? (You have to run my patched code to >> see it since I can't do the frame manipulation I need without that.) > > Then, why are you sure the problem isn't in your code? Surely if it is > a bug in Emacs there will be a way to show it with the trunk code? Because they are not related to that part of the code. >> No ;-) > > Hmm... allow me to disagree ;-) What can I do? ;-) > While debugging. Not as a general principle. I don't want to run Emacs > under GDB for a totally unrelated reason and have a lot of noise. Yes, of course. But keeping a commented out one line debug output call might be quit useful in some places. >> And the changes that allows better menu handling are also a bit >> scaring when merging. They are still only in my code. > > Perhaps the latter is consequence of the former. Yes, I know.