Re: [Chicken-users] SRFI-27 and 3.5.0
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ivan Raikov ivan.g.rai...@gmail.com wrote: For the time being, I have reverted srfi-18.scm to that of Chicken release 3.4.0. This fixes the issues you reported with srfi-18 and srfi-27. I have restored the latest version of srfi-18 and fixed some bugs and everything tests okay now. The patch is attached below, and I have also applied it to the repository. Jim Index: srfi-18.scm === --- srfi-18.scm (revision 13178) +++ srfi-18.scm (working copy) @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ (##sys#slot th 8) ) (define-inline (%thread-mutexes-set! th wt) - (##sys#setslot th 8 wx) ) + (##sys#setslot th 8 wt) ) (define-inline (%thread-mutexes-empty? th) (null? (%thread-mutexes th)) ) @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ (max 0 (+ s C_startup_time_seconds)) ) (define-inline (%seconds-milliseconds s) - (* (##sys#flonum-fraction (##sys#exact-inexact s)) 1000) ) + (* s 1000) ) (define-inline (%milliseconds-seconds ms) (/ ms 1000) ) @@ -473,17 +473,19 @@ (set! make-thread (lambda (thunk #!optional (name (gensym 'thread))) (##sys#check-closure thunk 'make-thread) - (%make-thread - name - (lambda () -(##sys#call-with-values - thunk - (lambda results - (%thread-results-set! thread results) - (##sys#thread-kill! thread 'dead) - (##sys#schedule))) ) + (let ((thread (%make-thread name #f))) +(%thread-thunk-set! + thread + (lambda () + (##sys#call-with-values +thunk +(lambda results + (%thread-results-set! thread results) + (##sys#thread-kill! thread 'dead) + (##sys#schedule) +thread))) ) -(define (thread? x) (%thread x)) +(define (thread? x) (%thread? x)) (define (current-thread) ##sys#current-thread) @@ -611,7 +613,7 @@ (lambda (#!optional (id (gensym 'mutex))) (%make-mutex id) ) ) ) -(define (mutex? x) (%mutex x)) +(define (mutex? x) (%mutex? x)) (define (mutex-name mutex) (%check-mutex mutex 'mutex-specific) ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] calling CHICKEN_eval from different threads
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Jan Baumgart raga.r...@gmx.de wrote: Hi! Is it possible, to make subsequent calls to CHICKEN_eval from within different nonreentrant(!) threads? No, the chicken runtime system is not thread-safe. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] calling CHICKEN_eval from different threads
Sorry, I've mixed up the terminology for reentrant. I actually meant the opposite: The chicken runtime system gets called only after the previous call (from another thread) has returned. Chicken_eval gets blocked by a mutex lock. I've also tested the scenario without the locks, to avoid any possibility of deadlocks, while making sure, the threads don't call chicken at the same time. But chicken_eval still hangs. felix winkelmann wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Jan Baumgart raga.r...@gmx.de wrote: Hi! Is it possible, to make subsequent calls to CHICKEN_eval from within different nonreentrant(!) threads? No, the chicken runtime system is not thread-safe. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] calling CHICKEN_eval from different threads
Hello, even if the calls don't occur in parallel, invoking the CHICKEN interpreter from different threads is problematic, since distinct threads usually have distinct stacks which will get CHICKEN's allocator confused. If you manage to update the stack base pointer for the allocator before entering the evaluator every time a thread switch occured, and if you also make sure that at most one thread is running CHICKEN code at any time, this should probably work. cu, Thomas -- When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] SRFI-27 and 3.5.0
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Peter Danenberg pe...@ck12.org wrote: Should we just pull it down from: https://galinha.ucpel.tche.br/svn/chicken-eggs/chicken/branches/chicken-3/ or are you going to make a release? It will make it into 3.5.2, but it doesn't contain any functionality or API changes; it was only an internal rewrite. So you can continue to use the 3.5.1 snapshot. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] I'm confused (again)
Hi again, This may seem like a strange question, but I'm confused about the use of set!.It may be a holdover from my pre-scheme days, but it seems I should be declaring a variable before using it with set!. In other words, I would use: (let ((x 0)) before setting x based on some value not available when x is declared. But it appears that set! itself declares the variable and the let is not needed. Is this correct or is my code just working magically? And if set! does declare a variable what is it's scope?I've been writing scheme for a couple of years and just decided I have no idea what I'm doing. (but, then again, that's what makes programming such fun) Bill ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] I'm confused (again)
William Ramsay scripsit: This may seem like a strange question, but I'm confused about the use of set!. It may be a holdover from my pre-scheme days, but it seems I should be declaring a variable before using it with set!. A Scheme implementation is allowed to either let you set! variables that have not been declared with define or bound with lambda/let/let*/letrec etc., or to make it an error to do so. Chicken belongs to the first type. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.orghttp://ccil.org/~cowan Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to [Sam], a grey-clad moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes, but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and his majesty. --Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] I'm confused (again)
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:12 PM, William Ramsay ramsa...@comcast.net wrote: This may seem like a strange question, but I'm confused about the use of set!. It may be a holdover from my pre-scheme days, but it seems I should be declaring a variable before using it with set! William, Check out http://chicken.wiki.br/Extensions%20to%20the%20standard under 4.1.6. In Chicken, set! for unbound toplevel variables is allowed. Also check out R5RS section 5.2.1. You might prefer, for style or portability, to have a dummy definition at toplevel, such as (define foo #f) or just (define foo), prior to performing the set!. Jim ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] I'm confused (again)
2009-02-26 William Ramsay ramsa...@comcast.net: [...] But it appears that set! itself declares the variable and the let is not needed. [...] And if set! does declare a variable what is it's scope? [...] Hello, if I'm not mistaken, using set! on a variable that hasn't been declared is equivalent to declaring it in the top level and using set! on it. However, this is not a feature that is portable between different Scheme implementations. cu, Thomas -- When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] I'm confused (again)
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com wrote: You might prefer, for style or portability, to have a dummy definition at toplevel, such as (define foo #f) or just (define foo), prior to performing the set!. Whoops. To be clear, (define foo) is a Chicken extension. For portability, use (define foo #f) or similar. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Segmentation Fault in C_mutate on Chicken 3.5.0 (OpenBSD i386)
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 08:14:41PM -0500, Taylor Venable wrote: Using Chicken 3.5.0 on OpenBSD 4.5-beta I get segmentation faults when using the http egg. This occurs every time when a 404 or 500 error is generated by the http-server. Happily, this seems to have been fixed by reverting the SRFI-18 implementation in devel release 3.5.1 - thanks! -- Taylor Christopher Venable http://real.metasyntax.net:2357/ ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Segmentation Fault in C_mutate on Chicken 3.5.0 (OpenBSD i386)
Quoth Taylor Venable on Boomtime, the 57th of Chaos: Happily, this seems to have been fixed by reverting the SRFI-18 implementation in devel release 3.5.1 - thanks! Christ; no wonder SRFI-18 is in core: its reach is almost ubiquitous. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] synch test code.
I'm working on trying to port the synch egg to chicken 4 as it's required by a few others (notably sqlite3). However I have no code that uses it without requirements to many other eggs that aren't part of chicken 4. If anyone has any test code for synch, or other code that should run cleanly on chiken 4 otherwise I'd appreciate getting ahold of it for testing purposes. Nicholas Indy Ray ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
