Subject: bug#25606: [DRAFT PATCH 2/2] Signal list cycles in ‘length’ etc.

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 20:45:48 +0200

> Cc: [email-masked]
> From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:45:21 -0800
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > I did provide use cases, you just dismiss them as unimportant.
> 
> You mentioned use cases consisting of "a memory-starved system or a system under 
> heavy computational load". My test code attempted to exercise both 
> possibilities, under different scenarios. My tests came up empty: there were no 
> cases that caused new problems.

That was your interpretation of the results.  It isn't mine: I don't
think that the fact that in your particular testing GC was a bugger
problem than the uninterruptible loop means the ability to interrupt
those loops has no value.

Besides, one particular simulation of the problem is not convincing
enough anyway.

> Perhaps I misunderstood what you were driving at, but if so I would
> like to know what it was.

I don't see what else can I explain in addition to what I already did.

> Possibly there is a more-efficient change that would satisfy your
> concerns, once I understand them.

How about if I turn the table and ask why is it so important to remove
those calls?