Re: Callbacks to Lisp from C (and SIGSEGV handling)

Good information and fortuitous timing on the removal of the SIGSEGV
mechanism.

Cheers.

On Sat, Mar 22, 2025, 2:48 p.m. Douglas Katzman <[email protected]> wrote:

> There is restore_sbcl_signals() in the C runtime.  But using it sounds
> like a bad idea to me. Since signal handlers are not per-thread, there's no
> way to make this reliable. An SBCL-internal thread (of which there is at
> least one, but could be more) could do an operation that receives sigsegv
> while some random thread called the C thing that changed the handler. The
> SBCL thread will probably react badly to having the wrong handler called.
> On a more positive note, we are almost at the point where there is no need
> for sigsegv. Most of the so-called dynamic space does not use it.  I have
> to remove sigsegv for tracking writes to slots of symbols, and there's not
> a lot else. (One other object type, falling under "not a lot else").  Maybe
> by the next SBCL release (April, not the pending one), I can complete the
> work needed to confine use of sigsegv for actual faults and not "normal"
> activity.
>

_______________________________________________
Sbcl-help mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-help