GNU bug report logs - #79131
31.0.50; igc: nested signal, SIGSEGV

Previous Next

Full log

Message #65 received at 79131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>
Cc: gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com, oscarfv <at> eclipso.eu, casouri <at> gmail.com,
 79131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#79131: 31.0.50; igc: nested signal, SIGSEGV
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2025 19:01:24 +0300

> Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2025 15:47:43 +0000
> From: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>
> Cc: Óscar Fuentes <oscarfv <at> eclipso.eu>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 79131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> But I'll wait for others to weigh in; maybe my theory is obviously
> >> incorrect.
> >
> > I think the memq thing is definitely a bug.
> 
> Unfortunately, while Fmemq and Fassq are easy to fix, Fget can also quit
> (if overriding-plist-environment is in use), and that's used in a few
> places here.  Do we need get_no_quit?

Maybe we should inhibit_igc instead (if we don't already)?  Otherwise,
we'd need to have those _no_quit thingies all over the place.  That
way lies madness, IMNSHO.  One cannot expect realistically the Emacs
Lisp machine top be in interruptible state at all times.  Even if we
could, who will enforce all those tricky subtleties, when most of our
patches are not even reviewed seriously?

Previous Next

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