[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc.

From: Daniel Colascione
Subject: Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:35:00 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0

On 12/21/2015 10:33 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Daniel Colascione wrote:
>> Most programs you use don't bother trying to detect or recover from sack
>> overflow. Why should they? C stack overflow is a programming error.
> Emacs is different because it's programmable, and it must respond
> robustly to programming errors.

It's programmable in Lisp. Lisp stack overflows shouldn't kill Emacs.
I'm suggesting that we shouldn't care about *C* stack overflows.

>> The current stack overflow scheme can't recover reliably
>> because it doesn't fix maintain invariants.
> It works well enough now for people to get work done. Introducing
> modules should not break this.

Modules can just dereference NULL or call abort. Writing a module is
more dangerous than writing a bit of elisp.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]