BTW, I have moved your previous attempts to treated inbox, so please,
do not fear to pollute the inbox again :)

Le sam. 10 avr. 2021 à 23:25, Nicolas Cellier
<nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> I'll live with it, xcuz the bad anglishe.
>
> Le sam. 10 avr. 2021 à 23:21, Nicolas Cellier
> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Jaromir,
> > many thanks for those efforts and for perseverating.
> > It must be a bit frustrating to not receive any answer to this good
> > work and deep investment, but there is a good reason for that: the
> > subject is tough, and not everyone is able to give you a quick answer
> > without reinvesting an equivalent slot of time as you personally did.
> >
> > This change-set looks good to my eyes, the level of comment is good
> > too and gives me some additional confidence.
> > I'm probably not at your level of expertise yet, but I vote for
> > integrating this in trunk.
> > In the meantime, I'll leave with it in my image(s) for a few days.
> > You can as well submit an inbox contribution as you did previously,
> > this is the preferred way, unless the changes span many packages.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> > Le sam. 10 avr. 2021 à 10:58, Jaromir Matas <m at jaromir.net> a écrit :
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The enclosed changeset fixes all bugs/inconsistencies concerning process
> > > termination listed below. It's a simplified version of the previous
> > > proposal. Feedback very welcome indeed!
> > >
> > > The idea is to simply extend the existing mechanism for completing
> > > halfway-through unwind blocks and let it deal with *all* unwind blocks.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > Fix_terminate_v3.cs <http://forum.world.st/file/t372955/Fix_terminate_v3.cs>
> > >
> > >
> > > Jaromir Matas wrote
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > here's a summary of bugs in the current termination procedure:
> > > >
> > > > 1. #isTerminated and #isSuspended fail to report correctly - in [1]
> > > >
> > > > 2. active process termination bug causing an image crash - in [2]
> > > >
> > > > 3. nested unwind bug: skipping some ensure blocks - in [3]
> > > >
> > > > 4. likely a bug: a failure to complete nested unwind blocks halfway thru
> > > > execution - also in [3]
> > > >
> > > > 5. Christoph's discovery: a failure to correctly close the debugger in
> > > > case
> > > > of error or non-local return in unwind - in [4]
> > > >
> > > > 6. inconsistent semantics of unwinding protected blocks during active vs.
> > > > suspended process termination
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----
> > > ^[^ Jaromir
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html
> > >