From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard M Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: multi-threaded Emacs Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:59:03 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87abbiody1.fsf@master.homenet> <877i6l5d8s.fsf@master.homenet> <874p1npvtj.fsf@master.homenet> <87ej0qci8g.fsf@master.homenet> <87y6yxm7xr.fsf@master.homenet> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1228446961 8573 80.91.229.12 (5 Dec 2008 03:16:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:16:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: gscrivano@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 05 04:17:05 2008 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 4.50) id 1L8RBg-0005SI-Mc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:17:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40035 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L8RAW-00063z-5c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:15:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L8R9d-0005cg-Tq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:14:58 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L8R9a-0005ZX-E9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:14:54 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58165 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L8R9X-0005ZS-SR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:14:51 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:44294) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L8R9X-0000dv-ML for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:14:51 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1L8QuF-00045t-1q; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:59:03 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:14:16 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:106589 Archived-At: Actually, yielding in QUIT will take a lot of work. It's definitely not "cooperative" seen from Elisp's point of view (where QUIT can be run implicitly all over the place). I am surprised. Perhaps you're right, but why do you think so? Anywhere that calls QUIT is a place where it is safe for an error to happen, so why not a thread switch? A slightly more conservative approach would be to thread-switch from QUIT on certain circumstances, such as, if the innermost unwind-protect has calls to Lisp code inside it. We could arrange for the specpdl to have the requisite info.