From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Possible bug in xfns.c
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:10 -0500
Message-ID: <E1D5OhS-0003rb-Cu@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <x5ekf3v0nm.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
	<6caafaac432f7e0ccd0d7659af49040d@swipnet.se>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1109511789 32349 80.91.229.2 (27 Feb 2005 13:43:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:43:09 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 27 14:43:09 2005
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1D5OhL-0006r7-OW
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:43:03 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1D5OzV-0008Kd-Us
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:01:49 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1D5Owv-0007pG-ST
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:59:09 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1D5Ows-0007mn-Cz
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:59:06 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D5Owr-0007li-Nb
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:59:05 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D5OhT-0002Hl-50
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:11 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1D5OhS-0003rb-Cu; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:10 -0500
Original-To: "Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>
In-reply-to: <6caafaac432f7e0ccd0d7659af49040d@swipnet.se> (jan.h.d@swipnet.se)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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
X-MailScanner-To: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:33869
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:33869

       BLOCK_INPUT;
       ...
       record_unwind_protect()
       ...
       UNBLOCK_INPUT;

       unbind_to();

I think that code is correct.

Neither record_unwind_protect nor unbind_to does anything to
interrupt_input_blocked.  If there is no abnormal control transfer,
unbind_to will run the function that record_unwind_protect recorded,
and UNBLOCK_INPUT will undo the BLOCK_INPUT.

If there is an abnormal control transfer, it will run that function.
It will also restore interrupt_input_blocked to the proper value
corresponding to the place the error is caught.  Which is not in this
function.