Kyle Meyer <k...@kyleam.com> writes: > Have you explored whether jit-lock (e.g., jit-lock-defer-time) helps for > your use case?
No I didn't know about it. I have tried it now and it seems to solve the same problem as my patch. > If we do go this route, I think the case needs to be made why this > spot is special, and why we don't expect or would reject follow-up > patches for this and that other area. > I can't think of a reason either (now that I know that jit-lock exists) so I will retract my patch.
