> The most common such problem by far is when a regexp hits a pathological
> exponential-matching behavior. I wish we'd fix that one instead.
> It would be good to fix that, but how? It is a consequence of the
> algorithm, and even recognizing these cases would seem to be a hard
> problem.
The problem is not just that the function doesn't terminate in a reasonable
amount of time, but that it can't be interrupted.
> Also, they're only painful because of Emacs's lack of NMI.
> What is NMI?
Non-Maskable Interrupt. I.e. like C-g but without paying attention to
things like inhibit-quit.
> E.g. when C-g is pressed, record the time, and if a C-g
> is pressed again 2 seconds later and the first hasn't been processed yet,
> then ignore the inhibit-quit flag (i.e. set it back to nil).
> I don't understand the suggestion clearly. What would it do if the
> second C-g is less than two seconds later?
Just like now: the second C-g is just ignored.
> What would it do if the second C-g is more than two seconds later?
By 2 seconds I meant "at least 2 seconds".
If two C-g are separated by 2 seconds or more and the first is not processed
by the time we see the second, then we can assume that Emacs is
non-responsive and that inhibit-quit should probably be ignored.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
