From xemacs-m  Wed Feb 19 02:14:27 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (root@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA25536
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 02:14:26 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id GAA28655; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:37:18 +0100 (MET)
Sender: hniksic@public.srce.hr
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: `kill -INT' better than C-g and C-S-g?
X-URL: ftp://gnjilux.cc.fer.hr/pub/unix/util/wget/
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: &}4JQk=L;e.~x+|eo]#DGk@x3~ed!.~lZ}YQcYb7f[WL9L'Z*+OyA\nAEL1M(".[qvI#a2E
 6WYI5>>e7'@_)3Ol9p|Nn2wNa/;~06jL*B%tTcn/XvhAu7qeES0\|MF%$;sI#yn1+y"
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 19 Feb 1997 06:37:11 +0100
Message-ID: <kigk9o58ign.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 28
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.13/XEmacs 19.14

Today I was working with a colleague, and his XEmacs (it was 20.0)
seemed to hang.  I tried C-g and C-Sh-g, but it didn't work.

Then he went to an xterm and said "Look what I do in these cases."
"What," said I, thinking that he would show a new and cool way of
killing XEmacs.  And what did he do?

repeat 5 kill -INT <xemacs-pid>

And you know what?  It woke XEmacs up -- it beeped a few times,
displayed `Quit' in the mode-line, redraw the screen and continued
working!  When C-g and C-Sh-g repeatedly wouldn't work.  This is fun
in its own way, but I think we should do anything to make C-g work the
best that it can.

XEmacs was running in an X environment, and OS was Linux 2.0.x.

I use this opportunity to ask the gurus: how is C-g implemented?  Is
it being just checked occasionally in the event loop?  Because, when
the INT signal came, it must have woken it up from whatever it was
doing, and raised a quit signal.

Can we improve handling of C-g in any way?

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Good pings come in small packets.

