GNU bug report logs - #25606
[DRAFT PATCH 2/2] Signal list cycles in ‘length’ etc.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #32 received at 25606 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: 25606 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25606: [DRAFT PATCH 2/2] Signal list cycles in
 ‘length’ etc.
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 20:45:48 +0200

> Cc: 25606 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
> 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?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.