From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25606: [DRAFT PATCH 2/2] Signal list cycles in =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98length=E2=80=99?= etc. Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 20:45:48 +0200 Message-ID: <83r33c79yb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170201235622.30836-1-eggert@cs.ucla.edu> <20170201235622.30836-2-eggert@cs.ucla.edu> <83wpd8v6x8.fsf@gnu.org> <0a01d2ce-ef3e-7db0-6854-1b5e46d49be4@cs.ucla.edu> <83efzfvhbm.fsf@gnu.org> <08b0e359-3a9b-49f2-1299-51e899f86712@cs.ucla.edu> <83y3xm8gxp.fsf@gnu.org> <838tpl91ic.fsf@gnu.org> <6e0e2bd1-8000-a210-f8f2-d2f91b178058@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486320431 3757 195.159.176.226 (5 Feb 2017 18:47:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:47:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 25606@debbugs.gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 05 19:47:07 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1caRq6-0000lS-Q7 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 19:47:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44131 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1caRqC-0002ZV-9E for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:47:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55910) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1caRq5-0002ZP-UP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:47:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1caRq2-0001Kb-3G for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:47:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:58682) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1caRq2-0001KS-00 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:47:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1caRq1-0000Vo-PB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:47:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 18:47:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25606 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 25606-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25606.14863203701912 (code B ref 25606); Sun, 05 Feb 2017 18:47:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25606) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Feb 2017 18:46:10 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56881 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1caRpC-0000Um-Bf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:46:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36535) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1caRp9-0000UI-R0 for 25606@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:46:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1caRp0-0000qD-Rz for 25606@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:46:02 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37913) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1caRp0-0000q7-Oc; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:45:58 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3824 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1caRoz-0000XA-FP; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:45:58 -0500 In-reply-to: <6e0e2bd1-8000-a210-f8f2-d2f91b178058@cs.ucla.edu> (message from Paul Eggert on Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:45:21 -0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:128996 Archived-At: > Cc: 25606@debbugs.gnu.org > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:45:21 -0800 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > I did provide use cases, you just dismiss them as unimportant. > > You mentioned use cases consisting of "a memory-starved system or a system under > heavy computational load". My test code attempted to exercise both > possibilities, under different scenarios. My tests came up empty: there were no > cases that caused new problems. That was your interpretation of the results. It isn't mine: I don't think that the fact that in your particular testing GC was a bugger problem than the uninterruptible loop means the ability to interrupt those loops has no value. Besides, one particular simulation of the problem is not convincing enough anyway. > Perhaps I misunderstood what you were driving at, but if so I would > like to know what it was. I don't see what else can I explain in addition to what I already did. > Possibly there is a more-efficient change that would satisfy your > concerns, once I understand them. How about if I turn the table and ask why is it so important to remove those calls?