Re: Blocking call to accept-process-output with quit inhibited!! [11 times]

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> IOW, maybe there should be a (with-local-quit ...) somewhere so that the
> user can C-g out of such a state (or the call should have a timeout, or
> inhibit-quit should not be set, ...).

Is there a way to get a backtrace instead of the warning?  By looking at
the code, I can't tell where the message comes from.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  address@hidden * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen