From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#12471: Avoid some signal-handling races, and simplify. Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:10:04 +0300 Message-ID: <83haqqwhhv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <50590626.2070407@cs.ucla.edu> <83lig6yoim.fsf@gnu.org> <505AB299.9090605@cs.ucla.edu> <837grozizw.fsf@gnu.org> <505C1A75.9030509@cs.ucla.edu> <83mx0jydya.fsf@gnu.org> <505CA363.1000603@cs.ucla.edu> <836277xolr.fsf@gnu.org> <505CAE5B.8060802@cs.ucla.edu> <83zk4jw7sf.fsf@gnu.org> <505CC70B.6050308@cs.ucla.edu> <83obkywkmt.fsf@gnu.org> <505D7B33.4000504@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1348305092 21795 80.91.229.3 (22 Sep 2012 09:11:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:11:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 12471@debbugs.gnu.org, lekktu@gmail.com To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 22 11:11:37 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TFLkN-0004eW-Ro for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:11:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53838 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TFLkJ-0007Bl-8K for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:11:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51078) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TFLkE-00079x-1G for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:11:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TFLk8-0001kt-Q1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:11:25 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:38503) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TFLk8-0001kp-MF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:11:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TFLll-0004mj-NU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:13:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:13:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12471 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 12471-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12471.134830512918334 (code B ref 12471); Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:13:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 12471) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Sep 2012 09:12:09 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48049 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TFLkq-0004la-FP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:12:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:63547) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TFLkk-0004l8-J9 for 12471@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:12:03 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MAQ00400UQ0NG00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 12471@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:10:16 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MAQ00437UT3KS30@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:10:16 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <505D7B33.4000504@cs.ucla.edu> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:64722 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 01:47:47 -0700 > From: Paul Eggert > CC: 12471@debbugs.gnu.org, lekktu@gmail.com > > On 09/22/2012 01:02 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > What you suggest now is that I add to 'sys_kill' a lot of stuff for it to > > be able to replace 'raise' > > Sorry, I don't follow. I did not suggest that, at any rate. > > Currently, emacs.c does the equivalent of this: > > kill (getpid (), sig); > > which on Windows is macro-expanded to > > sys_kill (_getpid (), sig); > > The proposed patch causes Emacs to do the > same Windows actions via the redefined 'raise'. That is, > emacs.c will do 'raise (sig)', and the implementation > of 'raise (sig)' will do 'sys_kill (_getpid (), sig)'. Which means 'sys_kill' will need to do everything that's expected from 'raise'. Like I wrote: > because a replacement of a library function needs to be at least as > good as the function it replaces. > If there is a problem with the proposed patch with respect > to Emacs sending a signal to itself, why doesn't the > current Emacs trunk have the same problem? I already explained that, too: > Please note that 'sys_kill' was written to emulate delivery of fatal > signals to Emacs subprocesses, not to the Emacs process. Adding the > two lines there to support aborting Emacs was already too far-fetched; > I did that as a temporary measure of getting a sane behavior while > waiting for the dust to settle -- as I was certain (and now proved > right) that the changes done then are not the last word on this. > And if so, shouldn't that problem be addressed independently, > regardless of the patch proposed for Bug#12471? It will be, once the dust settles on this (or we enter the feature freeze, whichever comes first). I was asking not to aggravate the situation, if it's possible. > > I will always prefer a small burden to a larger one. > > I was referring to the overall burden, for all maintainers, > not just the burden for the Windows maintainers in particular. So was I.