Re: master 8c81818673a 6/7: Tune volatile in read_char

[Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>]

On 2024-08-19 12:29, Pip Cet wrote:
> now we reset the quit counter to the value it had when we
> registered the handler, which might reduce it, and thus lead to missed
> quits (though I haven't found a bytecode object that causes that bug
> yet)

I don't see how that could lead to missed quits. Can you explain? (Are 
you thinking of dealing with corrupted bytecode objects? But I don't see 
it even then.)

quit_counter is merely a heuristic: it merely needs to increase if the 
current bytecode object loops forever. If I understand things correctly 
this increase should happen (albeit perhaps more slowly) regardless of 
whether your proposed patch is applied, which means the patch shouldn't 
be needed.