Re: [Chicken-users] Named let*
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com wrote: On May 27, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Michele La Monaca mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net wrote: So writing down the options, we have: (let* loop ((i (random N)) (ch (string-ref buf i))) (do-something) (if (some-condition-is-true) (loop (+ i 1) (string-ref buf (+ i 1) vs. (let ((start (random N))) (let loop ((i start) (ch (string-ref buf start))) (do-something) (if (some-condition-is-true) (loop (+ i 1) (string-ref buf (+ i 1)) vs. (let ((ch '())) (let loop ((i (random N))) (set! ch (string-ref buf i)) (do-something) (if (some-condition-is-true) (loop (+ i 1) Why not (let loop ((i (random N))) (let ((ch (string-ref buf i))) (do-something) (if (some-condition-is-true) (loop (+ i 1) Yes, sure. Thanks for spotting the omission. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] POP3 egg: issue and possible fix.
From: Geoffrey lordgeoff...@optusnet.com.au Subject: [Chicken-users] POP3 egg: issue and possible fix. Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 15:13:35 +1000 The commercial mail server i connect to sends a simple +OK after a USER. It doesn't have any trailing characters, so this match from the pop3.scm fetch proc fails: (match (string-match (\\+OK|\\-ERR) (.*) ln) I changed it (somewhat inexpertly) to: (match (string-match (\\+OK|\\-ERR) *(.*) ln) and it works. Thanks a lot. I applied the fix, see pop3 1.5. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On the latest stable 4.8.0.3: Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux systems? The make and make install went fine but make check blew up early. Looking over the mailing list archives somebody else got the same problem way back when and realized it was because of some x86_64 test case but nobody ever said whether the tests are broken or whether this requires 64 bit support. Can somebody make a definitive comment on this please? If this is supposed to work I'll run it again and post the output. Thanks /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04 ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
* John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:12]: On the latest stable 4.8.0.3: Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux systems? The make and make install went fine but make check blew up early. Looking over the mailing list archives somebody else got the same problem way back when and realized it was because of some x86_64 test case but nobody ever said whether the tests are broken or whether this requires 64 bit support. CHICKEN works fine on 32 bit. I am sorry that it does not work for you, could you please provide us with a transcript of what you did and how it fails? Thanks, Christian -- In the world, there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong, nothing can surpass it. --- Lao Tzu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
John Long scripsit: Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux systems? Yes, it definitely is. The problem is that we don't have a proper build farm with sufficiently diverse machines, so support tends to crumble at awkward moments. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan If he has seen farther than others, it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves. --Mike Champion, describing Tim Berners-Lee (adapted) ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
Hi John, On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:11:41 + John Long codeb...@inbox.lv wrote: On the latest stable 4.8.0.3: Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux systems? Yes. The make and make install went fine but make check blew up early. What is the error you get? Looking over the mailing list archives somebody else got the same problem way back when and realized it was because of some x86_64 test case but nobody ever said whether the tests are broken or whether this requires 64 bit support. Can somebody make a definitive comment on this please? If this is supposed to work I'll run it again and post the output. Yes, it is supposed to work. Some tests related to symbol GC may fail occasionally, but otherwise everything is supposed to work. Please, send us the make check output if you get errors again. Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:15:21 -0400 John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: John Long scripsit: Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux systems? Yes, it definitely is. The problem is that we don't have a proper build farm with sufficiently diverse machines, so support tends to crumble at awkward moments. Actually, the only official build farm we have happens to be 32-bit Linux . :-) Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On 05/28/13 10:11:41, John Long wrote: On the latest stable 4.8.0.3: [snip] Haven't tried 4.8.0.3, but 4.8.0.1 builds and installs fine, and I'm using it for a non-trivial app, which also works fine. -John -- John Maxwell KB3VLL j...@jmaxhome.com Speaking just for me, I don't think I have Linux blinders on my eyes. I can see other platforms, but I *choose* to ignore them on the theory that if I ignore them hard enough they will go away. This theory is obviously crazy. However, it also appears to be working. — Eric S. Raymond ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
Hi Christian, Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list! Thanks! /jl library tests ... ../chicken library-tests.scm -output-file a.c -verbose -include-path .. -specialize Warning: in local unknown procedure, in local unknown procedure, in toplevel unknown procedure: (library-tests.scm:27) in procedure call to `finite?', expected argument #1 of type `number', but was given an argument of type `symbol' Warning: in local unknown procedure, in local unknown procedure, in toplevel unknown procedure: (library-tests.scm:51) in procedure call to `exact?', expected argument #1 of type `number', but was given an argument of type `symbol' Warning: in local unknown procedure, in local unknown procedure, in toplevel unknown procedure: (library-tests.scm:55) in procedure call to `inexact?', expected argument #1 of type `number', but was given an argument of type `symbol' Warning: in local unknown procedure, in local unknown procedure, in toplevel unknown procedure: (library-tests.scm:95) in procedure call to `even?', expected argument #1 of type `number', but was given an argument of type `symbol' Warning: in local unknown procedure, in local unknown procedure, in toplevel unknown procedure: (library-tests.scm:96) in procedure call to `odd?', expected argument #1 of type `number', but was given an argument of type `symbol' Warning: in local unknown procedure, in local unknown procedure, in toplevel unknown procedure: (library-tests.scm:167) in procedure call to `min', expected argument #1 of type `number', but was given an argument of type `symbol' Warning: in local unknown procedure, in local unknown procedure, in toplevel unknown procedure: (library-tests.scm:168) in procedure call to `max', expected argument #1 of type `number', but was given an argument of type `symbol' gcc a.c -o a.o -c -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -DHAVE_CHICKEN_CONFIG_H -DC_ENABLE_PTABLES -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -I.. -I/usr/local/include/chicken rm a.c gcc a.o -o a.out -L.. -L/usr/local/lib -Wl,-R/usr/local/lib -lchicken -lm -ldl rm a.o Error: (library-tests.scm:210) assertion failed: (= (sin 42.0) (fpsin 42.0)) Call history: library-tests.scm:198: number-string library-tests.scm:198: g846 library-tests.scm:198: number-string library-tests.scm:198: g846 library-tests.scm:198: number-string library-tests.scm:198: g846 library-tests.scm:198: number-string library-tests.scm:198: g846 library-tests.scm:198: number-string library-tests.scm:198: g846 library-tests.scm:198: number-string library-tests.scm:198: g846 library-tests.scm:198: number-string library-tests.scm:198: g846 library-tests.scm:198: number-string library-tests.scm:210: ##sys#error -- make[1]: *** [check] Error 70 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/dev01/builds/chicken-4.8.0.3' make: *** [check] Error 2 ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
Mario Domenech Goulart scripsit: Actually, the only official build farm we have happens to be 32-bit Linux . :-) Yeah, I was actually thinking of my poor half-abandoned Cygwin. :-) -- And it was said that ever after, if any John Cowan man looked in that Stone, unless he had a co...@ccil.org great strength of will to turn it to other http://ccil.org/~cowan purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering in flame. --The Pyre of Denethor ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
* John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:25]: Hi Christian, Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list! Yes, some more info would be nice. Did you just download the 4.8.0.3 tarball untarred it, ran make make install make check? What have been your build steps? -- In the world, there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong, nothing can surpass it. --- Lao Tzu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:36:11PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote: * John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:25]: Hi Christian, Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list! Yes, some more info would be nice. Did you just download the 4.8.0.3 tarball untarred it, ran make make install make check? Yes, except I didn't know how to tell the makefile to use -O3 so I changed the C_COMPILER_OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS after the else in Makefile.linux to match the line before the else. What have been your build steps? make PLATFORM=linux su make PLATFORM=linux install ctrl-d to exit to user shell make PLATFORM=linux check What should I attach? Thanks /jl ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:36:58PM +, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: Hey John On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:25:09 + John Long codeb...@inbox.lv wrote: Warning: in local unknown procedure, in local unknown procedure, in toplevel unknown procedure: (library-tests.scm:168) in procedure call to `max', expected argument #1 of type `number', but was given an argument of type `symbol' gcc a.c -o a.o -c -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -DHAVE_CHICKEN_CONFIG_H -DC_ENABLE_PTABLES -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -I.. -I/usr/local/include/chicken rm a.c gcc a.o -o a.out -L.. -L/usr/local/lib -Wl,-R/usr/local/lib -lchicken -lm -ldl How did you call make to build, install and check chicken? make PLATFORM=linux su make PLATFORM=linux install exit make PLATFORM=linux check Do you have libchicken.so in /usr/local/lib? Yes, it is a symlink to libchicken.so.6 also in /usr/local/lib If so, is it the one installed by chicken-4.8.0.3? Yes, it has today's date and time on it. Thanks. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:25:09PM +, John Long wrote: Hi Christian, Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list! Error: (library-tests.scm:210) assertion failed: (= (sin 42.0) (fpsin 42.0)) fpsin expands pretty much to a direct call to the C sin() function, while sin is wrapped in a function. It could be that your compiler is performing some optimization which causes this value to be (slightly?) different. If it's possible, could you try it on a different version of your C compiler (or another C compiler entirely), and/or tell us your compiler's version? Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
Hey John On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:25:09 + John Long codeb...@inbox.lv wrote: Warning: in local unknown procedure, in local unknown procedure, in toplevel unknown procedure: (library-tests.scm:168) in procedure call to `max', expected argument #1 of type `number', but was given an argument of type `symbol' gcc a.c -o a.o -c -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -DHAVE_CHICKEN_CONFIG_H -DC_ENABLE_PTABLES -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -I.. -I/usr/local/include/chicken rm a.c gcc a.o -o a.out -L.. -L/usr/local/lib -Wl,-R/usr/local/lib -lchicken -lm -ldl How did you call make to build, install and check chicken? Do you have libchicken.so in /usr/local/lib? If so, is it the one installed by chicken-4.8.0.3? Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
* John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:48]: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:36:11PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote: * John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:25]: Hi Christian, Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list! Yes, some more info would be nice. Did you just download the 4.8.0.3 tarball untarred it, ran make make install make check? Yes, except I didn't know how to tell the makefile to use -O3 so I changed the C_COMPILER_OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS after the else in Makefile.linux to match the line before the else. This may indicate a compiler optimisation breaking assumptions in our code. Does it work for you when you leave the values as is? Thanks, Christian -- In the world, there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong, nothing can surpass it. --- Lao Tzu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:47:15PM +, John Long wrote: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:36:11PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote: Yes, some more info would be nice. Did you just download the 4.8.0.3 tarball untarred it, ran make make install make check? Yes, except I didn't know how to tell the makefile to use -O3 so I changed the C_COMPILER_OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS after the else in Makefile.linux to match the line before the else. Can you try without optimization options, before we go on a wild goose chase? Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:49:48PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:25:09PM +, John Long wrote: Hi Christian, Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list! Error: (library-tests.scm:210) assertion failed: (= (sin 42.0) (fpsin 42.0)) fpsin expands pretty much to a direct call to the C sin() function, while sin is wrapped in a function. It could be that your compiler is performing some optimization which causes this value to be (slightly?) different. It sounds like you nailed it. The tests run fine at -Os but fail at -O2 and -O3. If it's possible, could you try it on a different version of your C compiler (or another C compiler entirely), and/or tell us your compiler's version? It's vanilla gcc 4.7.1. I'm ok for now but I would like it to work at least at -O2. Seems like gcc (almost) always works at -O2! /jl ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:04:31PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote: * John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:48]: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:36:11PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote: * John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:25]: Hi Christian, Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list! Yes, some more info would be nice. Did you just download the 4.8.0.3 tarball untarred it, ran make make install make check? Yes, except I didn't know how to tell the makefile to use -O3 so I changed the C_COMPILER_OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS after the else in Makefile.linux to match the line before the else. This may indicate a compiler optimisation breaking assumptions in our code. Does it work for you when you leave the values as is? I didn't dream this up, as you know the makefile has provisions for -Os and -O3 so I ASSumed somebody tested that! ;-) It builds fine under -Os, O2, and O3 but the tests fail here at -O2 and -O3. Thanks. /jl ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:19:00PM +, John Long wrote: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:49:48PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: It could be that your compiler is performing some optimization which causes this value to be (slightly?) different. It sounds like you nailed it. The tests run fine at -Os but fail at -O2 and -O3. It's vanilla gcc 4.7.1. I'm ok for now but I would like it to work at least at -O2. Seems like gcc (almost) always works at -O2! Well, possibly the tests are wrong (flonum equality is Hard). I'll have a look and see if this can be improved. If it's indeed an optimization that causes a small difference in flonums, it shouldn't cause any problems in practice so you should be able to compile with -O3 and have no trouble. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:20:14PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: Well, possibly the tests are wrong (flonum equality is Hard). I'll have a look and see if this can be improved. If it's indeed an optimization that causes a small difference in flonums, it shouldn't cause any problems in practice so you should be able to compile with -O3 and have no trouble. I just tested with -O3 on NetBSD/amd64 (gcc 4.5.3) and also on Linux/i686 (Debian gcc 4.3.2-1.1) and all tests pass, with and without DEBUGBUILD=1. For now I'd say this is a problem with your particular gcc version. If you or someone else can reproduce this and come up with a patch that would be great. You don't have to edit Makefiles BTW, you can easily force -O3 by running gmake C_COMPILER_OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS=-O3 ... You can also pass OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED=1, which is a catchall setting. If you want to let this stick around, config.make is the place to add these settings. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Protocol Buffers for CHICKEN
Hello,
during the CHICKEN spring thing in Cologne I started to work on a new
egg [1] implementing the protocol buffer [2] serialization format, which
is now in a usable and tested state.
If you don't need or want to use a specific schema for your data, you
can use the protobuf egg as a generic serialization solution that
produces platform-independent binary representations of (almost) any
CHICKEN values:
$ cat source.scm
(require-library protobuf)
(import protobuf-generic)
(serialize (lambda (x) (print (* 2 x
$ csi -s source.scm lambda.pbf
$ cat sink.scm
(require-library protobuf)
(import protobuf-generic)
((deserialize) 42)
$ csi -s sink.scm lambda.pbf
84
The serialized data can be read by other protocol buffer enabled
applications, it may not have the most convenient structure, though.
So if you have a need to communicate with other software that uses
protocol buffer definitions, you can use the protoc compiler plugin that
comes with this egg to generate a CHICKEN binding automatically from
existing schema definitions:
$ cat person.proto
package person;
message Person {
required int32 id = 1;
required string name = 2;
optional string email = 3;
}
$ protoc --proto_path=. --chicken_out=. person.proto
$ cat test.scm
(require-library protobuf)
(include person.scm)
(import protobuf person)
(serialize (make-person id: 42 name: Jane Doe))
$ csi -s test.scm | \
protoc --proto_path=. person.proto --decode=person.Person
id: 42
name: Jane Doe
Deserialization is just as simple with a call to (deserialize person).
The protobuf messages are represented as SRFI-99 records in CHICKEN that
can be manipulated as usual. Enumeration values are represented as symbols.
If you're interested, check the egg documentation for advanced features
and give the library a try :-)
Ciao,
Thomas
--
[1] https://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/protobuf
[2] http://protobuf.googlecode.com/
--
When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Protocol Buffers for CHICKEN
This is very welcome!
I wonder if this would be useful for storing data in a posix shared
memory block...
-Dan
On 5/28/2013 3:15 PM, Thomas Chust wrote:
Hello,
during the CHICKEN spring thing in Cologne I started to work on a new
egg [1] implementing the protocol buffer [2] serialization format, which
is now in a usable and tested state.
If you don't need or want to use a specific schema for your data, you
can use the protobuf egg as a generic serialization solution that
produces platform-independent binary representations of (almost) any
CHICKEN values:
$ cat source.scm
(require-library protobuf)
(import protobuf-generic)
(serialize (lambda (x) (print (* 2 x
$ csi -s source.scm lambda.pbf
$ cat sink.scm
(require-library protobuf)
(import protobuf-generic)
((deserialize) 42)
$ csi -s sink.scm lambda.pbf
84
The serialized data can be read by other protocol buffer enabled
applications, it may not have the most convenient structure, though.
So if you have a need to communicate with other software that uses
protocol buffer definitions, you can use the protoc compiler plugin that
comes with this egg to generate a CHICKEN binding automatically from
existing schema definitions:
$ cat person.proto
package person;
message Person {
required int32 id = 1;
required string name = 2;
optional string email = 3;
}
$ protoc --proto_path=. --chicken_out=. person.proto
$ cat test.scm
(require-library protobuf)
(include person.scm)
(import protobuf person)
(serialize (make-person id: 42 name: Jane Doe))
$ csi -s test.scm | \
protoc --proto_path=. person.proto --decode=person.Person
id: 42
name: Jane Doe
Deserialization is just as simple with a call to (deserialize person).
The protobuf messages are represented as SRFI-99 records in CHICKEN that
can be manipulated as usual. Enumeration values are represented as symbols.
If you're interested, check the egg documentation for advanced features
and give the library a try :-)
Ciao,
Thomas
--
[1] https://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/protobuf
[2] http://protobuf.googlecode.com/
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Protocol Buffers for CHICKEN
On 2013-05-29 00:32, Dan Leslie wrote: [...] I wonder if this would be useful for storing data in a posix shared memory block... [...] Hello Dan, that is certainly possible, you would just combine serialize and call-with-output-string to obtain data you can copy into a shared buffer and call-with-input-string plus deserialize to extract the stored value on the receiving side. However, shared memory between processes or threads on the same machine has the advantage that one can place data in native formats in there without having to care about endianness issues etc. So perhaps object-evict and friends would be more efficient in this case. The protobuf serialization could be quite useful for distributed computing applications. Combining serialization of thunks with network transport and some cryptographic authentication scheme yields you could quickly construct a secure remote compute job submission server or a distributed map reduce network, for example. Ciao, Thomas -- When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Protocol Buffers for CHICKEN
Huh, now that is useful! https://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Unit%20lolevel#object-evict Still, if I ever have call to use pshm for ipc between chicken and not-chicken workers then this egg would probably be useful. Thanks again, -Dan On 5/28/2013 5:24 PM, Thomas Chust wrote: On 2013-05-29 00:32, Dan Leslie wrote: [...] I wonder if this would be useful for storing data in a posix shared memory block... [...] Hello Dan, that is certainly possible, you would just combine serialize and call-with-output-string to obtain data you can copy into a shared buffer and call-with-input-string plus deserialize to extract the stored value on the receiving side. However, shared memory between processes or threads on the same machine has the advantage that one can place data in native formats in there without having to care about endianness issues etc. So perhaps object-evict and friends would be more efficient in this case. The protobuf serialization could be quite useful for distributed computing applications. Combining serialization of thunks with network transport and some cryptographic authentication scheme yields you could quickly construct a secure remote compute job submission server or a distributed map reduce network, for example. Ciao, Thomas ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
