Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> schrieb am Mi., 2. März 2016 um 19:54 Uhr:

> On 03/01/2016 01:43 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> >
> >
> >     https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-12/msg00871.html
> >
> >
> > I think this patch can still be applied as-is, it just simplifies the
> > code a bit without changing any behavior.
>
> OK, thanks, I applied it to master, along with the attached followup
> which cleans things up a bit more and removes unnecessary runtime checks.
>

Thanks. Why did you remove the checks? I think all of them are necessary
and lead to undefined behavior if they are violated.


>
> >
> >
> >     https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-12/msg00881.html
> >
> >     https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-12/msg00902.html
> >
> >
> > The second one is newer, so the first one should be discarded in favor
> > of the second one. Given the decision to allow longjmp on segfault, it
> > is no longer correct, but a variant (replacing "non-local exits" with
> > "non-local exits due to Lisp `signal' and `throw'") should still be
> > correct and useful.
>
> This one looks more dubious. As I mentioned in the containing thread,
> the comments are somewhat distracting where they are. Perhaps they could
> be collected together into a comment in emacs-module.c that summarizes
> the assumptions it makes.
>
>
The issue with that approach is that if one of the used functions is
changed to throw signals, then the change author might not know to update
emacs-module.c. In the worst case, for every function that starts throwing
signals emacs-module.c would have to be investigated. It's less fragile to
document the requirements in the functions themselves.