There is one thing about the modified signaling:
I now can better see from the signal handler what all the thread
states are.
The bad (good actually, wild guesses before) news: it *is* possible
to end up with the current thread state as "blocked".
However I just found out, and the thread which i
On Sep 30 2011, Alan Post wrote:
Thank you for this.
I notice, right away, that your io_needs_restart handles EAGAIN in
the same way it handles EINTR. I have always introduced a timeout
when I get an EAGAIN, and I give up after say 3 tries.
While I can follow the reasoning, it might not (or
>> AIUI mmap of /dev/zero (to allocate more
>> empty heap) can't block on very much...
>I don't think you can mmap a
> device, can you?
Sure you can! Mmapping /dev/zero gets you zeroed writable pages and, last I
looked, is how the heap is obtained. Devices representing frame buffers support
m
On Sep 30 2011, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Alan,
I figured that you did almost have you for the process-io-ports code
I cited the other day.
Alan, another warning: I just fixed a case of EINTR, where the code
shows strong heritage from the tcp unit. (I wrote some parallel code
base on it,
Thank you for this.
I notice, right away, that your io_needs_restart handles EAGAIN in
the same way it handles EINTR. I have always introduced a timeout
when I get an EAGAIN, and I give up after say 3 tries.
My use case here:
Let's say fork() returns EAGAIN. This could happen because ulimit
ha
Alan,
I figured that you did almost have you for the process-io-ports code
I cited the other day.
It might make your live easier, if I just post the code as I'm using
it right now.
Be warned: it does one thing NOT. When there is a bad fd encountered
while reading/writing to a fd, the read/writ
On Sep 30 2011, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
;; Now a tentatively replacement for process-wait. I'm not using
;; That anywhere. Falls back to the state of affairs in pid=0
(define (alt-process-wait pid nohang)
(if (<= pid 0)
(process-wait pid nohang
(if nohang
(process-te
Alan Post scripsit:
> I was misremembering a statement from APUE (Advanced Programming in
> the Unix Environment), which talks about signal queuing being
> *permitted* by Posix, but not required. And no one does it.
Yes. I was confusing the conventional signals with the real-time
signal interfa
On Sep 30 2011, Alan Post wrote:
I think your point about signal being a wrapper around sigaction
deserves to be repeated: it's my understanding too, and means that
as it stands, my sigaction patch is essentially or completely a
no-op on most platforms. Jerry's experience with it confusingly
no
Now let's see how we can use those modifications.
This code is far from what I'd like it to be.
It starts out with the idea, that it tries to resemble the
process-wait API as it stands.
However in the presence of green threads I feel that the API
is not the best we could have. This translates
> > Your other points about multiple signals sugget it should be a proper
> > queue, not just a bitmask. Although I have a vague feeling that Unix was
> > allowed to coalesce pending signals as it just used a bitmask itself...
>
> In the old days, yes. Now signals have guaranteed delivery, at lea
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:30:13AM +0100, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
> Your other points about multiple signals sugget it should be a proper
> queue, not just a bitmask. Although I have a vague feeling that Unix was
> allowed to coalesce pending signals as it just used a bitmask itself...
> Meh, I dun
Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:
> Yeah. We need to make sure that Chicken's stack limit (which triggers a
> GC) is sufficiently clear of the real stack limit to give us legroom for
> any fun and games that may occur in the runtime.
The chance of a stack blowup is essentially nil. Chicken, the last ti
the file is mentioned in distribution/manifest but not in the
directory
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
* Sven Hartrumpf [110930 12:20]:
> Hi all.
>
> Why does "chicken-install silex" wants to include chicken.h, although current
> chicken versions install only chicken/chicken.h ?
I have just installed silex via chicken-install from kitten
technologies without problems. This has been done on a linu
Hi all.
Why does "chicken-install silex" wants to include chicken.h, although current
chicken versions install only chicken/chicken.h ?
> chicken-install silex
retrieving ...
connecting to host "chicken.kitten-technologies.co.uk", port 80 ...
...
installing silex: ...
changing current directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/29/2011 05:24 PM, Alan Post wrote:
[signal near stack limit]
> The Minix source code is illustrative on this point. I think a
> program being near the stack limit when a signal arrives is the only
> time in that operating system that a process
Hallo,
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
wrote:
>
> The pattern is to allocate some space on the stack, fill stuff in,
> eventually jump to the continuation. GC will only happen during the
> jump, not within the time between allocation and assignment of initial
> values. (B
18 matches
Mail list logo
