From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] feature/byte-unwind-protect 916094a 2/2: Add new bytecodes for unwind-protect
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:15:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jwvh8rc7eme.fsf-monnier+gmane.emacs.devel@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 874lnck2a8.fsf@tromey.com
>>> + CASE (Bpushunwindprotect): /* New in 27.1. */
>>> + {
>>> + struct handler *c = push_handler (Qt, CATCHER_ALL);
> Stefan> Hmm... using this "catch+rethrow" method interferes with the
> Stefan> debug-on-error stacktrace:
> Hmm, yeah.
> Any ideas for fixing this?
Probably change the maybe_call_debugger code so it ignores
CATCHER_ALL somehow.
> One idea would be to capture the stack trace when CATCHER_ALL is
> targeted, then have a way to pass this to signal or throw.
In general, it'd be nice, yes, except that:
> But often the stack trace isn't needed.
Exactly.
> Stefan> I also wonder if there can be places where we call something like
> Stefan> `unbind_to` which should run those new unwind-forms but won't find it
> Stefan> because it won't look at the handlers [ offhand, I can't think of any
> Stefan> place where that would happen, and I think it's probably OK, but
> Stefan> I can't quite convince myself that it definitely is. ]
> If this happens then surely it's already a problem for catch and
> condition-case?
But having looked a bit more carefully at the code, I think we're OK, indeed.
> Stefan> All in all, I'd really prefer if we kept the unwind forms in
> Stefan> the specpdl. Was there a particular reason why you used the
> Stefan> handlers instead?
> This is how catch and condition-case are implemented.
I know. But until now all the unwind forms are pushed to the specpdl,
whereas the catcher and condition-case handlers go to the
handlers stack.
Your patch changes that by moving the unwind forms to the handlers stack
(tho it keeps the "built-in unwinds" on the specpdl).
> I do agree there's no reason to have a separate handler list. In fact
> this puzzled me for a while. However I think it's a separate cleanup.
Yes, merging the two is a different issue (last I looked at that code
I was also tempted to go that way, but the two are used quite
differently, so it's not clear there'd be much benefit).
Stefan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-23 16:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20180123051231.6240.43062@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
[not found] ` <20180123051232.EBBB6207FC@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
2018-01-23 15:35 ` [Emacs-diffs] feature/byte-unwind-protect 916094a 2/2: Add new bytecodes for unwind-protect Stefan Monnier
2018-01-23 15:44 ` Tom Tromey
2018-01-23 16:15 ` Stefan Monnier [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=jwvh8rc7eme.fsf-monnier+gmane.emacs.devel@gnu.org \
--to=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.