Re: [failure] XEmacs 21.0-b40 on FreeBSD 2.2.6
- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2024 -----
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2006 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2005 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2004 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2003 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2002 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2001 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2000 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1999 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1998 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
SAKIYAMA Nobuo <nobuo(a)db3.so-net.or.jp> writes:
When executing cl-float-limits in dumped xemacs,
overflow errors and underflow errors are
guarded by
(condition-case err
body
(arith-error nil))
style.
But in temacs, signal handlers are not defined as in my previous
article. Thus, all overflow errors and underflow errors may cause
unguarded SIGFPEs and temacs dumps core.
Thanks for tracking this down. The right solution is to catch SIGFPE
in temacs, so that the code works. Martin, what do you think?
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Try to use "ad nauseam" at least once per flame. It doesn't mean
anything; but it gives that polished feel to your postings.
Martin Buchholz
Monday, 18 May
Mon, 18 May
1:54 a.m.
New subject: [failure] XEmacs 21.0-b40 on FreeBSD 2.2.6
>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic
<hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
Hrvoje> SAKIYAMA Nobuo <nobuo(a)db3.so-net.or.jp> writes:
> When executing cl-float-limits in dumped xemacs,
> overflow errors and underflow errors are
> guarded by
>
> (condition-case err
> body
> (arith-error nil))
>
> style.
>
> But in temacs, signal handlers are not defined as in my previous
> article. Thus, all overflow errors and underflow errors may cause
> unguarded SIGFPEs and temacs dumps core.
Hrvoje> Thanks for tracking this down. The right solution is to catch SIGFPE
Hrvoje> in temacs, so that the code works. Martin, what do you think?
I can't think of any reason not to catch the same signals in batch
mode as in `regular' mode. The standard lisp facilities should be
available to folks trying to write XEmacs `scripts'.
But signal handling is always tricky, so we should be careful.
Martin
Olivier Galibert
Monday, 18 May
Mon, 18 May
3 a.m.
New subject: [failure] XEmacs 21.0-b40 on FreeBSD 2.2.6
On Sun, May 17, 1998 at 05:54:23PM -0700, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I can't think of any reason not to catch the same signals in
batch
mode as in `regular' mode. The standard lisp facilities should be
available to folks trying to write XEmacs `scripts'.
But signal handling is always tricky, so we should be careful.
Signal handling is a fragile mix of system and libc state. If the
system thinks that a signal (say SIGFPE) isn't handled while the libc
thinks it is (after starting a dumped executable that was handling it)
I don't really know what will happen.
OG.
9686
days inactive
9687
days old
2 comments
3 participants
tags (0)
participants (3)
-
Hrvoje Niksic -
Martin Buchholz -
Olivier Galibert