From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philipp Stephani Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc. Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:19:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83mvu1x6t3.fsf@gnu.org> <565779CD.80405@cs.ucla.edu> <83io4nuc68.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3iht93x.fsf@gnu.org> <838u4psznr.fsf@gnu.org> <56772054.8010401@cs.ucla.edu> <83zix4scgf.fsf@gnu.org> <5677DBC9.6030307@cs.ucla.edu> <83io3rst2r.fsf@gnu.org> <567841A6.4090408@cs.ucla.edu> <567844B9.2050308@dancol.org> <83y4cnr5iv.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1130cd24123b7005276e36a9 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1450729213 22357 80.91.229.3 (21 Dec 2015 20:20:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:20:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, tzz@lifelogs.com, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 21 21:20:12 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1aB6wF-0000Qx-PK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:20:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47136 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aB6wE-0004bK-Qj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:20:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44505) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aB6vx-0004bD-Ky for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:19:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aB6vw-0004R0-MV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:19:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]:34740) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aB6vv-0004PJ-3G; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:19:51 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id l126so83405013wml.1; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:19:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=9mbvF9iVFt+DI2u9AocKNL/6EyHmk+4icaEQY0XIFBg=; b=q79kETaOi2n/6FrQJAeN+zVzEQsWhr7ohPTM6EREww3JsOL6uWGHMV5h1tLmRehsmd dpSyGAMd8n+kVTd4ckZzTgHH95ecVTc9o5We2HniNHTGOqLxTNkMGfXd8e/8+qZJEJDa 1L4wsHPRGHvGJ7euCv16wG0mt1PZeBhODAbgHaVqxKlDxncEpXoLRXHtksM42ORoZJf8 3NybwxPgyuVpayKSmihsNrpzXAlhFAFQLD1WzKb2vzE6A7vnDnthvhAswpHRVdqJlqgD 4tjua9BUjfuE1N7vMzmWbmwOEPCvED9S32kvMv1mVcXZcGrEMAEO3ym4JXut6uP49IHW uunA== X-Received: by 10.194.116.170 with SMTP id jx10mr22707620wjb.166.1450729190601; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:19:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83y4cnr5iv.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::236 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:196628 Archived-At: --001a1130cd24123b7005276e36a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Eli Zaretskii schrieb am Mo., 21. Dez. 2015 um 20:00 Uhr: > > Cc: aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, p.stephani2@gmail.com, > tzz@lifelogs.com, > > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Daniel Colascione > > Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:28:09 -0800 > > > > IMHO, we should treat OOM exactly like other sorts of error. It's > > dangerous to make some functions infallible. > > We do: we signal an error. > For heap allocation failures, yes, but I think not for stack overflows. (And I think handling stack overflows is much harder, so I guess most people don't bother trying.) --001a1130cd24123b7005276e36a9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Eli Za= retskii <eliz@gnu.org> schrieb am= Mo., 21. Dez. 2015 um 20:00=C2=A0Uhr:
> Cc: aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, p.stephani2@gmail.com, tzz@lifelogs.com,
>=C2=A0 emacs-d= evel@gnu.org
> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:28:09 -0800
>
> IMHO, we should treat OOM exactly like other sorts of error. It's<= br> > dangerous to make some functions infallible.

We do: we signal an error.

For heap all= ocation failures, yes, but I think not for stack overflows. (And I think ha= ndling stack overflows is much harder, so I guess most people don't bot= her trying.)=C2=A0
--001a1130cd24123b7005276e36a9--