Re: usr1-signal, usr2-signal, etc.

[YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu]

>>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:38:21 -0500, Chong Yidong <address@hidden> said:

> address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:
>> So I would rather redefine them to single events (named sigusr1 and
>> sigusr2 as those names are already known to the signal-process
>> function), and handle them through special-event-map as you
>> suggested.

> In that case, is there a rationale for the rather large changes
> checked into emacs.c, keyboard.c, and process.c over the last two
> weeks?  Should they not be reverted?

Do the "large changes" you think should be reverted include my
2006-12-14 changes?  These changes are not for the event format but
for fixing a problem that has existed for a long time.  That is, about
calling a non-reentrant function in a signal handler context while it
is executed in a normal context.

                                     YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
                                address@hidden