From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs does not listen on w32 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:38:07 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4800D965.9080202@gmail.com> <480208C8.3030401@gnu.org> <480212F7.7090409@gmail.com> <4802249D.2060909@gmail.com> <480271D2.7040304@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1208137100 4365 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2008 01:38:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:38:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , jasonr@gnu.org, "Lennart Borgman \(gmail\)" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stefan Monnier" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 14 03:38:58 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1JlDeq-0004O9-Un for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:38:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JlDeC-0000jK-R3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:38:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JlDe8-0000ix-3j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:38:12 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JlDe6-0000iX-KM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:38:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JlDe6-0000iU-EJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:38:10 -0400 Original-Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.176]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JlDe6-0001EW-1b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:38:10 -0400 Original-Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so1764873wah.10 for ; Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:38:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=9NIfo5YtOlWLa4vkue8T+QxK5I6gdYNHf+MY+3V+CNM=; b=tLM9LDuq1nq5oSdGG3CvdqJi3oGj6Pw0Xb3JIZxRr5nHTYSWeLGW2jeiTOcZK8GQUhJn6ntQBw+VlZvK/nrzfS+QX1eHGBIskkoKZicBubzRjnY9TJRGx6ki8bX2LBosBCI8Bp4R12j+L6IM7zooWp9pKSzCiCZ7LpAAjZ9b5dE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=to0lUHYPtxa2yS7pobJQpf+0ZLZOHrTKf39bibQxA/3KMLJqVtKC3zTQbMfXVoAMVRxOwXA+xcY8DqaThQXoSBLapTbw0K1rBmxvhuZGrioVme4NJcQpx3M55gNZN2qm4i2Rtvlas31qDn/PugExu4QYusZadYDJi99DfK3SIvA= Original-Received: by 10.114.134.20 with SMTP id h20mr6220088wad.91.1208137087763; Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.115.72.13 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:38:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: 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:95148 Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > You wouldn't: when the WM_CLOSE message is put into the queue, the > currently running Elisp code would additionally be interrupted > "unconditionally" by setting the quit-flag. Yes, that's what I think Lennart was suggesting. > I'm not sure if that'd be the right behavior. It certainly doesn't look like such. > In any case, the first > thing to do is to figure out what *really* happened in the first place. > We don't even know why Emacs didn't respond. Maybe it has nothing to do > with the processing of WM_CLOSE. I don't think the problem was related to WM_CLOSE. What you suggested is much more likely: a memory leak. Windows tends to be *extremely* unresponsive on low-memory situations. My answering to Lennart is because he's trying to hack around a probable bug by pushing for a half-cooked idea, when a combination of (the Windows equivalent of) kill -9 and gdb would be more appropriate :) Juanma