GNU bug report logs - #68799
30.0.50; emacs --fg-daemon fails silently if server-start fails

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: sbaugh <at> catern.com
Cc: 68799 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, sbaugh <at> janestreet.com
Subject: bug#68799: 30.0.50; emacs --fg-daemon fails silently if server-start fails
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:05:58 +0200

> From: sbaugh <at> catern.com
> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 19:50:20 +0000 (UTC)
> Cc: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh <at> janestreet.com>, 68799 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> > Thanks, this needs a comment explaining why we need condition-case and
> >> > where does error-message-string come from.
> >> 
> >> Actually, on second thought, we could fail anywhere in startup.el, not
> >> just in server-start.  So should we actually have a wrapper around all
> >> of normal-top-level which detects an error at startup in a daemon?
> >
> > I'd prefer to handle each specific problem specially, to make sure the
> > error message is self-explanatory.  Also, if the error happens after
> > the server has been started, there's no reason to forcibly exit.
> >
> > So I think we should for now solve this particular issue, and not try
> > generalizing too much.
> 
> To be clear, right now any error anywhere in command-line causes "emacs
> --fg-daemon" and "emacs --bg-daemon" to hang indefinitely, without
> printing an error, with no way to ever interact with the Emacs process.

That's not what you said before: you said "anywhere in startup.el",
which is much more general.  Now you are saying something different.

What exactly is meant by "anywhere in command-line"? the function
command-line in startup.el? or something else?

> This error can come from any code, so if we have *any* bugs anywhere in
> code called from command-line, it will cause Emacs to enter this state.

Why would we assume that *any code* there will signal an error?
That's like saying that Emacs is a useless program that always signals
errors in random places.  That's a non-starter here.

> We can add good error messages for individual classes of error, but we
> should also have a catch-all check to make sure that Emacs doesn't enter
> this broken state if we (or the user) write code which contains a bug.

There's no reason to have a catch-all check where no error is
expected.  Do you always wrap all of your code in condition-case and
the likes?  If not, why not?

> I have concrete reasons to want this: I think there's a bug in
> command-line in trunk which some of my users using emacs --daemon have
> run into.  But I have zero information about what caused the bug,
> because Emacs just hangs without printing any error message in this
> case.

Then please debug that, and let's talk when you do have concrete data.

> To allow users to report bugs that are at all useful, we should at least
> print the error that occurred, even if we don't kill Emacs.

Users aren't supposed to debug Emacs, it's the job of developers.  And
developers know how to run Emacs under a debugger and do any number of
other debugging tricks.  Injecting debugging code into Emacs just
because some of your users did something wrong is not a good idea.  Or
maybe it is -- but we won't know until we understand what exactly goes
wrong in those cases.

Previous Next

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