Re: igc, macOS avoiding signals

[Gerd Möllmann]

Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com> writes:

> "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 10:09:25 +0000
>>> From: Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com>
>>> Cc: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii
>>> <eliz@gnu.org>, spd@toadstyle.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>>
>>> "Helmut Eller" <eller.helmut@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > I wonder if the backtrace that we see in the signal handler is any
>>> > different from the backrace that we would see at the next safe point
>>> > (i.e. the next time maybe_quit is called).
>>>
>>> If we keep a shadow signal mask, the only requirement for a safe point
>>> is that we made some progress OR the lock was released.  But the
>>> backtrace will change if we wait for the next maybe_quit, IIUC.
>>>
>>> maybe_quit is not a great safe point, it's just the best we have.  It's
>>> insufficient if Emacs becomes idle, and how often we call rarely_quit
>>> is quite unpredictable.
>>
>> What about doing that from process_pending_signals?
>
> Yes.  

I'm all for it.