Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Evan Hanson
On 2016-02-24 21:12, Peter Bex wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:54:24PM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:12:09AM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > > > > As I wrote in this other mail before I received this one: how about > > > > removing the

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Peter Bex
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:54:24PM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:12:09AM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > > > As I wrote in this other mail before I received this one: how about > > > removing the identifier from the hide list. This should not be

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Print "chicken-install -repository" after processing all arguments

2016-02-24 Thread Peter Bex
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 02:04:40PM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote: > Without this, the sanity check that requires a prefix to be given when > the "-deploy" option is used is never triggered, and running the command > "chicken-install -deploy -repository" just prints "#f". Thanks, pushed. Cheers, Peter

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Peter Bex
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:50:31PM +, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: > Not sure if I understand what you mean, but listing eggs does work: > > $ wget 'http://code.call-cc.org/cgi-bin/henrietta.cgi?release=5=1' -q > -O - > > queues > object-evict > srfi-18 > binary-search >

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Mario Domenech Goulart
Hello, On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:36:17 +0100 Peter Bex wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:05:00PM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > >> I might be interested in the setup stuff, but it will take time, of course >> (it's quite some work to get this working on Windows

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Peter Bex
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:05:00PM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > But backporting can be done afterwards, and even just if requested. > Development on 4 should be phased out, IMHO, excepting critical > security issues, of course. Usually it's very little (or no) work to backport. If

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread felix . winkelmann
> > Does it have to be fixed in Chicken 4 at all? > > Not necessarily, but I figured that since the scheduler hasn't changed > much between the two versions, if we have a fix for 5 it can be applied > to master without too many changes as well. This goes for several > improvements that have been

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread felix . winkelmann
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:12:09AM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > > Am 24.02.2016 um 10:29 schrieb Peter Bex: > > > I really hope you understand this and can agree with it. > > > > As I wrote in this other mail before I received this one: how about > > removing the identifier from the

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Peter Bex
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:12:09AM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > Am 24.02.2016 um 10:29 schrieb Peter Bex: > > I really hope you understand this and can agree with it. > > As I wrote in this other mail before I received this one: how about > removing the identifier from the hide list.

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Jörg F . Wittenberger
Am 24.02.2016 um 10:29 schrieb Peter Bex: > I really hope you understand this and can agree with it. As I wrote in this other mail before I received this one: how about removing the identifier from the hide list. This should not be able to break anything and allow me to get rid of the overhead.

[Chicken-hackers] force-primordial: proposal of a compromise solution - was Re: slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Jörg F . Wittenberger
Am 24.02.2016 um 10:21 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger: > Am 24.02.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger: >> Am 24.02.2016 um 09:29 schrieb felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com: I've done some tests and I was able to get strange behaviour from the scheduler, see

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Peter Bex
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:21:19AM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > Am 24.02.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger: > > Am 24.02.2016 um 09:29 schrieb felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com: > >>> I've done some tests and I was able to get strange behaviour from the > >>> scheduler, see > >>>

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Jörg F . Wittenberger
Am 24.02.2016 um 09:29 schrieb felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com: >> I've done some tests and I was able to get strange behaviour from the >> scheduler, see >> http://paste.call-cc.org/paste?id=d9e4c5b8f8473fd1114dcec56c9c8a079b252362 >> However, none of these behaved any different under CHICKEN

Re: [Chicken-hackers] slow polling

2016-02-24 Thread Peter Bex
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:29:56AM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > > I've done some tests and I was able to get strange behaviour from the > > scheduler, see > > http://paste.call-cc.org/paste?id=d9e4c5b8f8473fd1114dcec56c9c8a079b252362 > > However, none of these behaved any different