Message301278
| Author | ncoghlan |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Mark.Shannon, deleted0524, erik.bray, gregory.p.smith, jdemeyer, ncoghlan, njs, xgdomingo, yselivanov |
| Date | 2017-09-04.22:48:10 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1504565290.89.0.293379113678.issue29988@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Right, if you look at the comments in the draft test case, we realised there are three things we currently need to protect: 1. POP_BLOCK -> WITH_CLEANUP_START (synchronous CM) 2. POP_BLOCK -> GET_AWAITABLE (asynchronous CM) 3. GET_AWAITABLE -> YIELD_FROM (asynchronous CM) Now that I have a test case, I'm going to start looking at defining a new DEFER_PENDING_UNTIL opcode that skips pending call processing (and hence signals) until that particular opcode offset is reached. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2017-09-04 22:48:10 | ncoghlan | set | recipients: + ncoghlan, gregory.p.smith, njs, Mark.Shannon, erik.bray, jdemeyer, yselivanov, deleted0524, xgdomingo |
| 2017-09-04 22:48:10 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1504565290.89.0.293379113678.issue29988@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017-09-04 22:48:10 | ncoghlan | link | issue29988 messages |
| 2017-09-04 22:48:10 | ncoghlan | create | |