Re: Re[2]: ghci and ghc -threaded broken with pipes forking
Had you deprecated the non-threaded RTS, we would probably have no problems described in ticket #2848 :-/ I think you'll have to deprecate it anyway, because it will be more and more difficult to maintain two versions of code, we may conduct small survey on amount of usage of old RTS (i mean ask this in haskell-cafe) For the only application I tried, using the threaded RTS imposes a 100% performance penalty - i.e. computation time doubles, compared to the non-threaded RTS. This was with ghc-6.8.2, and maybe the overhead has improved since then? Regards, Malcolm ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
RE: Re[2]: ghci and ghc -threaded broken with pipes forking
Hi Bulat, My contribution to the survey: I've used forkProcess to daemonize a ghc program inside the haskell fuse bindings: http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/HFuse http://code.haskell.org/hfuse/System/Fuse.hsc If removing the non-threaded RTS would break forkProcess entirely, these bindings would have to do something different. The issue: users of the FUSE C api will get daemonized using daemon(2); it'd be nice if GHC fuse programs could behave similarly. Thanks, Brian Bloniarz Hello Tomasz, Saturday, December 6, 2008, 10:52:39 PM, you wrote: Had you deprecated the non-threaded RTS, we would probably have no problems described in ticket #2848 :-/ I think you'll have to deprecate it anyway, because it will be more and more difficult to maintain two versions of code, especially if one of them will be much less used and tested. we may conduct small survey on amount of usage of old RTS (i mean ask this in haskell-cafe) -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users _ Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-ussource=wlmailtagline___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re[2]: ghci and ghc -threaded broken with pipes forking
Hello Tomasz, Saturday, December 6, 2008, 10:52:39 PM, you wrote: Had you deprecated the non-threaded RTS, we would probably have no problems described in ticket #2848 :-/ I think you'll have to deprecate it anyway, because it will be more and more difficult to maintain two versions of code, especially if one of them will be much less used and tested. we may conduct small survey on amount of usage of old RTS (i mean ask this in haskell-cafe) -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re[2]: ghci and ghc -threaded broken with pipes forking
Hello Simon, Friday, March 2, 2007, 1:07:07 PM, you wrote: But let me add a voice to keeping the non-threaded RTS around. i want to mention that problem here is not the threaded RTS by itself, but standard i/o library that works via separate i/o manager thread that is built-in part of RTS. my Streams library [1] don't uses this thread at all. for threads created with forkOS it provides excellent overlapping of I/O and computations (thanks, Simon, situation was *greatly* improved in 6.6). of course, it should be not so great for forkIO'd threads that i want to say is that future i/o lib may be written in the RTS-independent way. John Meacham once proposed to develop some common API for i/o managers that will allow to use various select variants with any i/o lib that works via this API -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
