[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-g crash redux
From: |
Romain Francoise |
Subject: |
Re: C-g crash redux |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:17:35 +0200 |
Nick Roberts <address@hidden> writes:
> In fact if BYTE_CODE_SAFE is defined, it appears Emacs will just
> generate an error rather than crash.
For those following along at home:
| /* Binds and unbinds are supposed to be compiled balanced. */
| if (SPECPDL_INDEX () != count)
| #ifdef BYTE_CODE_SAFE
| error ("binding stack not balanced (serious byte compiler bug)");
| #else
| abort ();
| #endif
I'm curious to know: if the error is recoverable, why abort?
The BYTE_CODE_SAFE branch certainly seems to suggest that it is
recoverable...
--
Romain Francoise <address@hidden> | The sea! the sea! the open
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | sea! The blue, the fresh, the
| ever free! --Bryan W. Procter
- Re: C-g crash redux, (continued)
- Re: C-g crash redux, Chong Yidong, 2006/08/04
- Re: C-g crash redux, Richard Stallman, 2006/08/04
- Re: C-g crash redux, Nick Roberts, 2006/08/04
- Re: C-g crash redux, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/04
- Re: C-g crash redux, David Kastrup, 2006/08/06
- Re: C-g crash redux, Richard Stallman, 2006/08/06
- Re: C-g crash redux, Nick Roberts, 2006/08/06
- Re: C-g crash redux, Nick Roberts, 2006/08/03
Re: C-g crash redux, Chong Yidong, 2006/08/03
Re: C-g crash redux, Richard Stallman, 2006/08/03
Re: C-g crash redux, Richard Stallman, 2006/08/03