Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Andras Pahi
Hi Alex, Thank you for your suggestions, I have traced listen and wait and both have The parameters are as expected (Ms is NIL, Sd is 17). As Mike tested on macOS Big Sur and it worked, the problem is in my setup. Regards, Andras > On 2021. Apr 15., at 19:11, Alexander Burger wrote: > > Hi

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Andras Pahi
Hi Mike, Thank you for the test, I am still on Mojave. I will check my setup where it went wrong. Regards, Andras > On 2021. Apr 15., at 21:13, Mike wrote: > > Andras, > > https://webirc.envs.net/uploads/5d228d2686705b27/8AB6ED6B-5EAC-4CBC-BCF8-84BB26447763.jpeg > this is my try on latest

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Mike
Andras, https://webirc.envs.net/uploads/5d228d2686705b27/8AB6ED6B-5EAC-4CBC-BCF8-84BB26447763.jpeg this is my try on latest big sur April 15, 2021 7:53 PM, "Andras Pahi" wrote: > Hi, > > I grabbed the latest pil21.tgz and demoApp.tgz. > > "pil @lib/test.l +" runs without errors. > > On

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Alexander Burger
Hi Andras, > > /pil app/main.l -ap~main -'go 4040' + > 6538 = 58885 48782252818959702~ > ap: !? (wait Ms T "Sd") > Select error: Invalid argument > ... > It has the same behavior as the previous version of pil21. Yeah, I thought about it, and came to the conclusion that today's change in

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Andras Pahi
Hi, I grabbed the latest pil21.tgz and demoApp.tgz. "pil @lib/test.l +" runs without errors. On macOS I've got /pil app/main.l -ap~main -'go 4040' + 6538 = 58885 48782252818959702~ ap: !? (wait Ms T "Sd") Select error: Invalid argument ap? Select error: Invalid argument ap? Select error:

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread picolisp
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:32:32AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: >> That's too bad! If poll(2) uses only 32 bits for the timeout, the maximum is >> 49 >> days (as opposed to the 292 million years (292MY) in 64 bits). > > Not even that! For signed 32 bits it is only 24 days :( > > Should I

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Alexander Burger
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 09:34:50AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > Looks like I should do that. Done! Can somebody test on a Macintosh or other BSDs? ☺/ A!ex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Alexander Burger
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:42:04AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > Should I change the design of waitFd() to use only 32 bits? Looks like I should do that. poll(2) is badly specified, using only int for the timeout. But we have to live with that, there may be other ABIs (other BSDs?) which

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Alexander Burger
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:32:32AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > That's too bad! If poll(2) uses only 32 bits for the timeout, the maximum is > 49 > days (as opposed to the 292 million years (292MY) in 64 bits). Not even that! For signed 32 bits it is only 24 days :( Should I change the

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Alexander Burger
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:07:21AM +0200, Andras Pahi wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, ‘int’ is 32bit on macOS, even when compiling to 64bit. > The pil21 demoApp does not work on macOS. Thanks Andras! That's too bad! If poll(2) uses only 32 bits for the timeout, the maximum is 49 days (as opposed to the

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Andras Pahi
Hi, Yes, ‘int’ is 32bit on macOS, even when compiling to 64bit. The pil21 demoApp does not work on macOS. pahihu sizeof(char) = 1 sizeof(short) = 2 sizeof(int) = 4 sizeof(long) = 8 sizeof(long long) = 8 sizeof(float) = 4 sizeof(double) = 8 sizeof(long double) = 16 sizeof(void*) = 8 > On 2021.

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

2021-04-15 Thread Alexander Burger
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 07:46:35AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > Hi all, > > I just stumbled across this mail in the archive. I have not received it, and > the > sending e-mail address seems just "picolisp". > > > picolisp Sun, 11 Apr 2021 15:05:25 -0700 Ah, that's all right! There is