From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Question about pgtk -- is it meant to fix the disconnect crash bug? Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 21:27:06 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87h7lr4zrv.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <58148d31-5886-a684-5a8a-49d489fcf355@grinta.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5246"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Daniele Nicolodi , EMACS development team To: chad Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 05 03:28:06 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lI0CE-0001GF-HC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 03:28:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53114 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lI0CD-0004LE-GS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 21:28:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lI0BN-0003UR-Lt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 21:27:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:22740) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lI0BL-0003PX-IA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 21:27:13 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 90E59441E96; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:27:09 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 27994441E88; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:27:08 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1614911228; bh=GqiGVbdzAMe84Q1Kp47F8/8mrv4w5/IzlIHPvyJWJpI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=IYeMaIL6LlUPsddz68+gQ0+gqRsrhnoD0jMeKaQTZbXFkoNmKznb+GTOWJbdNPfA2 4OIaerUkoB9zAJsY5gvoMlh/H3x5mSFofItgVxkDIjLPsPYORMKETT5/V8NKEUg1Tf I9rS8Wic+++h/4kgnu7eLzRMCNxo6/5jliiiHdOjzNhuAq5+mfINvEu59LcmV5T267 KVwzf+5bmtI7GGNMYjtg7PwfrY24ofP0lvP7gSzoMWM8FbYYIYrLEF+Le+rbcNu/rZ 6hf7RpeopP+8UYwfApQu/k4GUJZNKOWyZIoUnloBlCm4y9bQAtOAWljrMH8YaBFu4W wgv5oIXbS3UFw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.43.249]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2400C1201FF; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:27:08 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (chad's message of "Thu, 4 Mar 2021 18:06:29 -0800") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:266001 Archived-At: >> The last time I looked at this the GTK maintainers are interested in >> investigating the bug and fixing it in GTK as long as it does not >> involve debugging Emacs but a more manageable reproducer of the issue. >> AFAIK, no one tried to provide one. > > That actually does not match my understanding; if I remember correctly, the > GTK people felt that emacs was doing something that they did not want to > support, and since no "well behaved" GTK applications had reported the > problem, they were thus were unwilling to continue. I might be > misremembering. AFAICT these two views are actually one and the same, just using different words. Stefan