From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Philipp Stephani
> From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:23:03 +0000
> Cc: phst@google.c= om, 30106@de= bbugs.gnu.org
>
>=C2=A0 I'd prefer that the only file that calls systhread.c functio= ns is
>=C2=A0 thread.c; systhread.c is supposed to be low-level code concealed= from
>=C2=A0 application levels.=C2=A0 So this would call for another level o= f
>=C2=A0 indirection: add a new function to thread.c, and call that from<= br> >=C2=A0 emacs-module.c.
>
> Makes sense, I've moved in_current_thread to thread.c because it= 39;s unrelated to modules.
Thanks.
>=C2=A0 Otherwise, LGTM for master; thanks.
>
> Can we push this to emacs-26? Right now emacs-26 can't even be com= piled with --without-threads
> --with-modules (on some systems at least).
How important is this?=C2=A0 --with-modules is an opt-in switch, and the
default is to build with threads.=C2=A0 So this sounds not very important to me, and the change, although simple, is not really trivial, and
will affect any module.=C2=A0 So I'm uneasy putting this on emacs-26, especially since the Emacs 26.0.91 tarball is already ready and is
awaiting upload, so this will only go into the next pretest, which I
hoped could be a release candidate...
Do you think leaving this for the next release will be so bad?OK, pushed to master as=C2=A0=C2=A0694ee38f8b.I don't expect this bug to cause correctness probl= ems, even with the combination --without-threads --with-modules. The test i= s buggy, but it will only cause false positives with --module-assertions. T= hat's annoying, but users can ignore these assertions. However, in the = correct implementation, in_current_thread is effectively always true if thr= eads are unavailable, so occasionally returning false is not a problem as f= ar as modules are concerned.