[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the state of the concurrency branch
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: the state of the concurrency branch |
Date: |
Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:57:28 +0300 |
One more comments about the concurrency branch:
I think the error-handling facilities of the code should be upgraded,
to be able to cope with problems in the underlying low-level APIs.
For example, what happens if there's some error inside sys_cond_init?
Currently, there's no way for it to communicate anything to its
callers so that those could handle the problem gracefully. Are
implementations supposed to call emacs_abort or signal an error from
such a low-level code? If not, we need to at least make sys_*
function return some value.
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, (continued)
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/29
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/31
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/31
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/28