From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MPS: a random backtrace while toying with gdb Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 18:24:20 +0000 Message-ID: <87ed8d7yy3.fsf@localhost> References: <87bk3jh8bt.fsf@localhost> <87wmm6rcv1.fsf@gmail.com> <86le2mhhsj.fsf@gnu.org> <875xtqramd.fsf@gmail.com> <86cynyhfsn.fsf@gnu.org> <87v81qp91g.fsf@gmail.com> <86tthafbix.fsf@gnu.org> <87plry6sv3.fsf@localhost> <86le2lfjqv.fsf@gnu.org> <87jzi5ibbe.fsf@localhost> <864j99fg0a.fsf@gnu.org> <87msn18225.fsf@localhost> <86le2ldn2t.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6d97zzm.fsf@localhost> <86frstdlla.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30409"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: eller.helmut@gmail.com, gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, pipcet@protonmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 01 20:23:03 2024 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 1sOLg7-0007kE-B3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 20:23:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sOLft-00076z-UP; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 14:22:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sOLfr-00076U-RF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 14:22:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sOLfp-0000n6-Fl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 14:22:47 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 257D8240103 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 20:22:42 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1719858163; bh=IOaYi6wB5hPtbDsN008sLz9GXhGkyAwioYUlBT5FEEY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: From; b=nKba1NIgCbLdLXORrGGdy8qu38TwNcJ8e5+h/auJzyfhb2ZqLMkFjO14pOCryaYP0 f5tfpesAVQGyt5uzO0MVwbcC2AavxV8dyxzPoZTUIL7jsuc+eMyBaflIhSM5BwyZEJ rz5A78Hidrp01SinMD+fo87ox5vkWiHRlmEuvxa3rZgxSGHVY/wbxHFM4Pg7X0hNGP xKVS5IXLH6XfxBUiPpjFaAdNlDxzMp+RP90/Vy5Vl5Kx2JXrcOnXgzy6YxA8rfJ/ly a08tIXno8hm9eGakQQ2Q6lkkW9OynC0oDZYe1++mZ2TQu2PfNar7LwvN4m/ZlMZN6J xLyFX1byrD6sw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4WCZCQ2v8Tz9rxK; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 20:22:42 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <86frstdlla.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:321052 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> I do not mean calling malloc. I mean, what happens if a signal arrives >> _while_ malloc is still in the process of allocating data? > > That's what I mean by "you mean malloc". > > If a signal happens while malloc is in progress, it is not a problem, > because signal handlers should not re-enter malloc. So, maybe it is going to be enough to make sure that we block signals while running `alloc_impl' (in igc.c)? > And if that doesn't answer your question, maybe I don't understand > what is it exactly that you are asking. I was mostly asking about technical implementation details of how malloc is preventing signals from being handled while it is doing its job. Maybe we can reuse it or have a more clear idea what is supposed to be done. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at