From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suspicious error in GTk Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:16:49 -0400 Message-ID: References: <871wgixm5k.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1181596650 31774 80.91.229.12 (11 Jun 2007 21:17:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:17:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 11 23:17:29 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HxrGN-0002du-2m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:17:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HxrGM-0001Ac-Fo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:17:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HxrFz-0000rv-Vw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:17:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HxrFz-0000rT-8M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:16:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HxrFy-0000rO-Vj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:16:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mercure.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.24.67]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HxrFy-0002Jo-Lm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:16:58 -0400 Original-Received: from hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.50]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FF22CF274; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (faina.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.26.177]) by hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6DD23FE1; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:16:49 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id C92D76C808; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:16:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <871wgixm5k.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Mon\, 11 Jun 2007 16\:37\:43 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-DIRO-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (score=-2.82, requis 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -2.82) X-DIRO-MailScanner-From: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:72650 Archived-At: >> While trying out SYNC_INPUT with Gtk together with the `eassert' debugging >> I bumped into the appended backtrace, right at startup. Basically, the code >> run from XTread_socket (run asynchronously at any time) can call >> update_frame_tool_bar which in turn calls xpm_load which ends up calling >> encode_coding_string (to encode the file's name) which fiddles with >> specpdl_ptr (via record_unwind_protect) and may run elisp code. >> >> Most likely it will usually not lead to any problem, but I believe it'll >> bite every now and then and will be difficult to trace. AFAICT my bug report has nothing to do with alloc.c. I even believe it's got nothing to do with SYNC_INPUT. I just happened to bump into it with a SYNC_INPUT build (because all my builds use SYNC_INPUT). > ISTR that parts of alloc.c are carried out inside BLOCK_INPUT, but > only if SYNC_INPUT is off. This is an optimization: if SYNC_INPUT is used, we never use malloc inside a signal handler, so we don't need to wrap them with BLOCK_INPUT. > Does this mean that we need BLOCK_INPUT even when SYNC_INPUT is on? I'm not sure what "this" refers to. Stefan