Re: [Chicken-users] Building Chicken Scheme for Android

Off topic, but I've played with several mobile devices and none of them have ever really 'stuck.' I wind up back on my laptop happier than I was when I wandered away. After enough of these experiences, I came to realize that not having a C compiler+native development environment was the common de

[Chicken-users] utf8 egg patch

Attached is a patch that should allow the utf8 egg to build against master. I hope I didn't miss anything, the patch is simple... I hope that this patch will clean up most of these regression test failures: http://tests.call-cc.org/master/linux/x86/2012/10/06/salmonella-report/rev-dep-graphs/

[Chicken-users] Alex Shinn, Kon Lovett: list of eggs needing new releases

Based on recently deprecated functions in core, the following eggs need new releases: condition-utils: patch to trunk attached. lookup-table:patch to trunk attached. srfi-41: 1.2.2 no longer works, but trunk has been updated. stack: patch to trunk attached. utf8:

[Chicken-users] patch to move my eggs to github

I've just migrated my eggs from the chicken-eggs svn repository into github. Will someone with the appropriate permission apply the patch? Thank you! -Alan -- .i ma'a lo bradi cu penmi gi'e du Index: egg-locations === --- egg-locat

Re: [Chicken-users] Alex Shinn, Kon Lovett: list of eggs needing new releases

Domenech Goulart > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 16:24:22 -0600 Alan Post > > wrote: > > > >> Based on recently deprecated functions in core, the following eggs > >> need new releases: > >> > >> condition-ut

Re: [Chicken-users] patch to move my eggs to github

On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 01:29:51PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 06:57:11PM -0600, Alan Post wrote: > > I've just migrated my eggs from the chicken-eggs svn repository into > > github. Will someone with the appropriate permission apply the > > patc

Re: [Chicken-users] Eggs breakage due to removal of deprecated features

Today's report shows a significant improvement to the nightly regression tests: http://tests.call-cc.org/master/linux/x86/2012/10/10/salmonella-report/ Five days ago, there were 153 failed egg installations[1]. We're now down to 43, when before the deprecation there were 11[2]. Thank you ever

Re: [Chicken-users] Pipe and thread problem

For me, that program is blocking on a call to poll(), which must be something that is happening in chicken's threading code. It is polling on two file descriptors with an infinite timeout, and clearly never coming back up for air. the produce thread is hanging on the thread-sleep call, and the co

Re: [Chicken-users] Pipe and thread problem

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:32:35AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 03:21:15AM -0400, Felix wrote: > > > Anyone with a better understanding of Chicken's internals able to > > > comment on which cases poll() is called and how the timeout value is > > > selected? > > > > poll(2) is

[Chicken-users] link error with PROGRAM_PREFIX and compiling eggs

I have built chicken using the PROGRAM_PREFIX option: $ gmake PROGRAM_PREFIX=foo- ... When I try to install an egg, using foo-chicken-install, I get an error from gcc that it cannot locate -lchicken: installing iset:1.8 ... changing current directory to /tmp/temp835e.3607/iset /home/a/

Re: [Chicken-users] link error with PROGRAM_PREFIX and compiling eggs

attached. On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:21:23PM +0200, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: [Chicken-users] link error with PROGRAM_PREFIX and compiling eggs > Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 19:03:39 -0601 > > > I have built chicken using the PROGRAM_PREFIX option: > > >

Re: [Chicken-users] Segmentation fault

When i've had problems of this sort, it is because I haven't sorted out my unit declarations, and I'm either missing the main hook or the complicity of declarations in each file doesn't quite line up. Without seeing the scripts you're compiling it might be difficult to provide much help. Would yo

Re: [Chicken-users] Segmentation fault

I*am back at My desk. Should I attach them to >an e-mail or provide a pastebin link? >Sincerely, > > On Monday, July 8, 2013, Alan Post wrote: > > When i've had problems of this sort, it is because I haven't sorted > out my unit declarations, and

[Chicken-users] missing change-directory* in posix.import.scm

It would appear that change-directory* is not in the export list for the posix unit. This is causing a compile-time warning (which then upgrades to an error) when I use that function from an egg: --- posix.import.scm~ Fri Nov 8 10:14:14 2013 +++ posix.import.scmFri Nov 8 10:12:15 2013 @@

[Chicken-users] undefined references in egg

I have a situation that resembles the following, where I have a definition |foo| that calls an undefined-by-the-module |bar|: <++> t.setup (compile -s t.scm) (install-extension 't `("t.so" "t.import.so")) <--> <++> t.scm (module t * (import scheme) (import chicken) (d

Re: [Chicken-users] undefined references in egg

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:50:58PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 10:42:10AM -0700, Alan Post wrote: > > Running chicken-install, I get the following warning and error: > > > > Warning: reference to possibly unbound identifier `bar' in: > >

Re: [Chicken-users] missing change-directory* in posix.import.scm

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 07:18:07PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 10:15:26AM -0700, Alan Post wrote: > > It would appear that change-directory* is not in the export list for > > the posix unit. This is causing a compile-time warning (which then > > upgrade

[Chicken-users] help with implicit renaming macro

I have a routine with several input arguments and one output argument. I want to write a macro to wrap my output argument such that I can pass the results of my input arguments to my output argument. (See below) I have this working with an explicit renaming macro, but this is overkill. I could

Re: [Chicken-users] help with implicit renaming macro

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 09:36:48PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:22:40PM -0701, Alan Post wrote: > > I'd like to rewrite this macro as an implicit renaming > > macro, which seems to require that I traverse form and > > insert (inject arg1) where

[Chicken-users] bind-let* evaluates argument three times

The following program: (use list-bindings) (bind-let* (((x) `(,(map write '(0 1 2) x) produces the output: 012012012 I would expect the output to be: 012 This is... unfortunate, as the particular iteration I'm performing is expensive. One can obviously work-around this problem by

[Chicken-users] no type error calling |append!|

The following produces a correct type error: $ csi -n #;1> (append "foo" "bar" '()) Error: (append bad argument type - not a proper list: "foo") Whereas this does not: $ csi -n #;1> (use srfi-1) #;2> (append! "foo" "bar" '()) () I would expect to see the error in example 1 repeate

Re: [Chicken-users] Crash with multithreaded TCP code

Did I miss the source to threadtest.scm here? The file that contains the variable num-threads? I don't see it. -a On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 05:41:44PM -0700, Christopher Collins wrote: >Version info: >** CHICKEN >** (c) 2008-2013, The Chicken Team >** (c) 2000-2007, Fe

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: with-open-pipe to handle sigpipe

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 04:02:10PM -0700, Lui Fungsin wrote: > OK, so the problem is that sigpipe is not handled. > > Does the following code look reasonable? > > Specifically, I'm not sure if escaping with the continuation k is the > proper way to gracefully handle the signal. > > Thanks. > I

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: with-open-pipe to handle sigpipe

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:13:00AM -0600, Jim Ursetto wrote: > On 4/16/08, Jim Ursetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/15/08, Lui Fungsin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure I followed you here. What's chicken's equivalent of SIG_IGN? > > > > (set-signal-handler! signal/pipe #f) > >

Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic egg PORT-A-MANIA!

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:38:53AM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote: > Hello! > > > I have added a page to the wiki listing the current status > of eggs which are or have to be ported to the new hygienic > chicken. Before Chicken 4 can be released, and this version > can become the official one, a l

Re: [Chicken-users] Hygienic Chicken's desftruct issue

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 04:31:42PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Peter Bex scripsit: > > > Perhaps you (or someone else on the list?) can think of a better name > > that can be prefixed, to remove all confusion? Ideally it'd be something > > which has been done before in Scheme, or failing that, some

[Chicken-users] using mmap files as strings?

I have the following file: <++> mmap.scm (use posix) (use lolevel) (let* ((fd (file-open "mmap.scm" (+ open/rdonly open/nonblock))) (size (file-size fd)) (mmap (map-file-to-memory #f size prot/read (+ map/file map/shared) fd)) (buf (memory-mapped-file-pointer mmap))) (writ

Re: [Chicken-users] using mmap files as strings?

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:20:01AM -0400, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: [Chicken-users] using mmap files as strings? > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:01:10 -0600 > > > I have the following file: > > > > <++> mmap.scm > > (use posix) > &

Re: [Chicken-users] Installing data files for eggs

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 02:23:36PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Felix scripsit: > > > Thanks. This was the information I was looking for. > > You can find all this stuff in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard version > 2.3 at . It applies for > the most

Re: [Chicken-users] using mmap files as strings?

very nice. -Alan On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:11:20PM -0500, Jim Ursetto wrote: > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:04, Peter Bex wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 05:58:02PM -0600, Alan Post wrote: > >> This is excellent, I've learned a lot more about how all of this > >>

Re: [Chicken-users] Survey results

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:48:22PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote: > Dear Chicken Fans! > > Thank you very much for all your replies during the last week(s). > I have updated the portability page accordingly. If you miss your > operating system in there or are running a newer version or what >

Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken Gazette - Issue 9

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 05:31:49PM -0500, Jim Ursetto wrote: > Install > > First, install chicken-doc. > > $ chicken-install -s chicken-doc > > The nicest way to work with chicken-doc is to check out a copy of > the wiki from Subversion, then use chicken-doc-admin to prepare it > for use.

Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken Gazette - Issue 9

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 05:31:49PM -0500, Jim Ursetto wrote: > chicken-doc-admin > > So this is the way to use chicken-doc as nature intended: checkout > the wiki and then process it with chicken-doc-admin. First, grab a > copy of the wiki and initialize an empty chicken-doc repository: > >

Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken Gazette - Issue 9

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 05:31:49PM -0500, Jim Ursetto wrote: > chicken-doc-admin > > So this is the way to use chicken-doc as nature intended: checkout > the wiki and then process it with chicken-doc-admin. First, grab a > copy of the wiki and initialize an empty chicken-doc repository: > >

Re: static linking (Re: [Chicken-users] wish-list

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:39:38PM +0900, Daishi Kato wrote: > At Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:09:42 +0200, > Peter Bex wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:57:23PM +0900, Daishi Kato wrote: > > > Oh, this sounds something. Yes, I don't need to eliminate ld dependence. > > > I'm not sure if I understa

Re: static linking (Re: [Chicken-users] wish-list

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 07:09:15PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 09:02:05AM -0600, Alan Post wrote: > > Not every egg supports linking to the .o file. For those eggs that > > don't, you'll need to add the support yourself. If you do, I'm sur

Re: static linking (Re: [Chicken-users] wish-list

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 07:09:15PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 09:02:05AM -0600, Alan Post wrote: > > Not every egg supports linking to the .o file. For those eggs that > > don't, you'll need to add the support yourself. If you do, I'm sur

[Chicken-users] new egg: genturfa'i, a packrat parser

I've just committed the initial version of my first Chicken Scheme egg. I began using Chicken Scheme again after reading Chicken Gazette #5. In that issue a packrat parser was featured. After trying to use it, I found I wasn't able to use the full range of PEG grammar expressions. I wasn't able

Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken Gazette - Issue 10

On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 07:21:33AM -0400, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: > Alan Post reported a bug (https://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/421) which affected > optional parameters in lambda lists, which was instantaneously fixed by > Felix. > That was in fact the single fastest bugfix I&

Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken Gazette - Issue 10

On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 03:25:50PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 02.11.2010, 14:52 +0100 schrieb Moritz Heidkamp: > > Hi Jörg, > > > > Jörg "F. Wittenberger" writes: > > > Though one thing I haven't been able to figure out: is there a way > > > encrypt and sign zmg message

Re: [Chicken-users] General newbie query about tspl execise

On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 10:39:19PM +0530, Enwin Thun wrote: > Please redirect me if this is inappropriate for this forum. > > The following code appears in the tspl book. > > > It is an "implementation of a queue use[ing] a tconc structure". >

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Other Cheney-MTA systems?

I only have "sounds very interesting" to add to the discussion, but if for some reason encouragement was the cause of your not making forward progress, please feel free to continue working now. :-) I would be happy to hear how this work goes as you hit milestones. -Alan On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at

Re: [Chicken-users] sequences egg

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:03:44AM -0500, Felix wrote: > Hello! > > > I've put together a little library of generic "sequence" operations, > and would like to get some feedback, since I'm not sure about the > nomenclature and API. Find it here: > > http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/sequences >

Re: [Chicken-users] sequences egg

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 03:20:42AM -0500, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] sequences egg > Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:37:35 -0700 > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:03:44AM -0500, Felix wrote: > >> Hello! > >> > >> >

[Chicken-users] keyword args not assigned in program.

I'm dealing with a frustrating bug--I haven't been able to turn it into a simple test case. Will you let me explain what is going on, why I haven't been able to make a test case, and then offer advice? I have a compiler to convert a PEG grammar to scheme. In my test suite, I have a line: <++> t

Re: [Chicken-users] keyword args not assigned in program.

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 06:37:59AM -0800, Alex Shinn wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Alan Post > wrote: > > > > It appears that directly evaluating the result of the compiler causes > > #!key arguments not to be assigned, but if I save that same result > &g

Re: [Chicken-users] keyword args not assigned in program.

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 04:00:26PM +0100, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: [Chicken-users] keyword args not assigned in program. > Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:59:38 -0700 > > > I'm dealing with a frustrating bug--I haven't been able to turn it > > into a

Re: [Chicken-users] keyword args not assigned in program.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Felix wrote: > > > > If I could wrap this example up and check in my egg, would you help > > me diagnose the problem? > > Please do so - I find it hard to follow all the compile- and run-time > distinction in this case. > > > cheers, > felix I have fil

Re: [Chicken-users] keyword args not assigned in program.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:06:55AM -0500, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] keyword args not assigned in program. > Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:35:18 -0700 > > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Felix wrote: > >> > > >>

[Chicken-users] utf8 and string-ref performance

I'm reaching a point where my PEG parser, gentufa'i[1], is going to be ready to tag version 1.0. I have an issue that I've been putting off that I would like some input on. If possible, I would like to parse utf8 input. I currently have utf8 enabled in my egg. gentufa'i works by storing the ent

Re: [Chicken-users] utf8 and string-ref performance

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 05:05:18PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 08:37:37AM -0700, Alan Post wrote: > > gentufa'i works by storing the entire input port in a string, and > > ceating position objects to refer to the "rest of the string" as I > &g

Re: [Chicken-users] utf8 and string-ref performance

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 05:05:38PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 24.11.2010, 08:37 -0700 schrieb Alan Post: > > Can anyone point me in the right direction? > > I'll paste an example from my code, because an example is sometime > better than a lyric

Re: [Chicken-users] utf8 and string-ref performance

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 07:15:49PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 07:13:10PM +0100, Felix wrote: > > > With cons cells you should be able to implement this efficiently enough. > > > We don't have anything like string-pointers which can store arbitrary > > > indices in a string AF

[Chicken-users] Can an egg have a library and executable with the same name?

My egg, genturfa'i, has an executable and a library. I've named the library genturfahi and the executable genturfahi-peg. I'd rather name the executable genturfahi too, though I suspect I'm not able to do that. Is this true? If it isn't, can someone point me to an egg that has a library and an

Re: [Chicken-users] utf8 and string-ref performance

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > > I'm probably confused or didn't fully > > understand the original problem. > > Me too. I'll stop talking for Alan and let him answer your questions > instead ;) > I tested compiling the Lojban morphology file with and without utf8 e

Re: [Chicken-users] Can an egg have a library and executable with the same name?

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 04:46:09AM -0500, Mario domenech Goulart wrote: > Hi Alan > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:16:55 -0700 Alan Post > wrote: > > > My egg, genturfa'i, has an executable and a library. I've named the > > library genturfahi and the executable

[Chicken-users] compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 hours

Yesterday I tried to create the infrastructure of my package jbogenturfa'i. This package uses my also under development package genturfa'i to compile Lojban's PEG grammar into a parser. The process goes like this: $ cat gerna.scm \ rafske_gumgau.scm \ rafske.scm \ | time ge

[Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 hours

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 09:07:01AM -0700, Alan Post wrote: > I can also provide the .c file generated by the failed compile, if anyone > would like to look at it. Because it is 61MB, I'll have to upload it to > my webhost for download, so please reply here or privately if you would

[Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 hours

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 09:07:01AM -0700, Alan Post wrote: > Let me describe the compiler using a toy example, so you can see the > basic framework I'm trying to compile. In Chicken Gazette #5, the > Tony Garnock-Jones' packrat parser was introduced, and it contained >

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 hours

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:05:01PM +0100, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: [Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 > hours > Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:16:54 -0700 > > > > > I would love to better understand what it is I&

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 hours

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:05:01PM +0100, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: [Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 > hours > Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:16:54 -0700 > > > > > I would love to better understand what it is I&

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 hours

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 09:55:27AM -0700, Alan Post wrote: > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:05:01PM +0100, Felix wrote: > > From: Alan Post > > Subject: [Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 > > hours > > Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:16:54 -

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 hours

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:50:48PM +0100, Felix wrote: > > I've rerun the build with "-debug 2", and it sent a lot of output to > > the terminal. The build hasn't finished running yet, but the > > terminal output has stopped. Here is the file so far, which I think > > is what you were asking for.

Re: [Chicken-users] Memoizing a procedure

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:42:20PM -0300, Hugo Arregui wrote: > Thanks for your comments Peter!, they are very interesting. > > > It looks good to me.  It only works for simple procedures though, > > not for procedures with optional arguments or keyword arguments. > > Keyword args can be in any or

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 hours

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:55:21PM +0100, Felix wrote: > > > > Reviewing the output from -debug 2, and rereading R5RS's > > documentation on letrec, I've reworked the compiler and moved > > the lambda that was being created for each use of a letrec variable > > to the definition: '(record (lambda

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 hours

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:01:54PM +0100, Felix wrote: > > > > Did you have a chance to look at the '-debug bosp' stuff? I'm > > curious to benefit from your expert eye, if you'd still like to do > > that. > > I'm sorry, Alan - I haven't been able yet to look more thoroughly at > this. Currently

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: compiling jbogenturfa'i .scm => .c takes 2.5 hours

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:14:46AM -0500, Felix wrote: > Hi, Alan. > > Your code output indicates a great need to optimize the code chicken > generates for large sets of mutually recursive procedures. I can't say > how long I'll need to address this, but I will try to improve this. > (See tickets

Re: [Chicken-users] c++ example

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:18:49AM -0500, David Dreisigmeyer wrote: > Hi, > > I was hoping to get some help with the c++ "hello world" example > below. I apologize for the question -- I'm currently learning both > Chicken and C/C++ at the same time. So far Chicken seems much easier > than the ot

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: seg fault

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:07:39AM -0500, Felix wrote: > From: David Dreisigmeyer > Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: seg fault > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:44:11 -0500 > > > It's i386. This ia a problem with Snow Leopard. Chicken wouldn't > > compile otherwise, with an error for apply-hack. > >

[Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i compile time down to 12 minutes

Felix has been corresponding with me privately, providing suggestions for how to modify the code generated by genturfa'i to generate smaller or more efficient C code when compiled by Chicken. I've modified genturfa'i to produce top-level definitions for all of the non-terminal rules in a grammar.

Re: [Chicken-users] redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:03:15PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > Am Freitag, den 03.12.2010, 12:57 -0500 schrieb Hans Nowak: > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:33, David Steiner > > wrote: > > > i'm reading SICP and practicing in chicken. in the book they redefine > > > cons, car and cdr using

[Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow"

Now that I've got jbogenturfa'i compiling using top-level forms, I'm trying to run it for the first time. To start, I've commented out my grammar file and am just using the morphology file. This compiles in a couple minutes I get a 700k .so file. Running this, I immediately get the error message

[Chicken-users] Re: jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow"

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 04:39:42PM -0700, Alan Post wrote: > I don't get much guidance as to what to do with this error message, > but I guessed I needed to adjust my '-stack-size' variable. Looking > at my ulimit, my stack size is set to 32MB, though I believe I'

Re: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i compile time down to 12 minutes

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 02:55:37PM -0800, Alex Shinn wrote: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Felix > wrote: > > From: Alan Post > > Subject: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i compile time down to 12 minutes > > Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:33:07 -0700 > > > >

Re: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow"

On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow" > Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:39:42 -0700 > > > > > May I have some guidance on what is happening here? Am I on the >

Re: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow"

On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 09:51:51AM -0500, Mario domenech Goulart wrote: > Hi Alan > > On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 07:33:04 -0700 Alan Post > wrote: > > > Is there a way to increase the length of the call history? I looked > > for it by grepping around chicken core, b

Re: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow"

On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 06:34:44PM +0100, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow" > Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 08:30:50 -0700 > > > If I comment-out that (if (not (hash-table-exists? ...)) ...) statemen

[Chicken-users] how should I handle callbacks into eggs?

In the PEG grammar recognized by genturfa'i, I can associate code with rules: grammar <- a / b a <- "a" {procedure-a} b <- "b" {procedure-b} |procedure-a| will be called if the input is "a", and |procedure-b| will be called if the input is "b". In jbogenturfa'i, I keep the grammar in a separate

Re: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow"

On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 05:15:40AM -0500, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow" > Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:15:26 -0700 > > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 06:34:44PM +0100, Felix wrote: > >> F

Re: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow"

On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 01:59:01PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 05.12.2010, 16:15 -0700 schrieb Alan Post: > > Should `equal?' descend into procedures, or just do an `eq?' test? > > R5RS only requires a structural equivalence test for pairs and &g

Re: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: "Error: stack overflow"

On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 05:08:32PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > Am Montag, den 06.12.2010, 08:46 -0700 schrieb Alan Post: > > I selected equal? in this case because the *lists* aren't going to > > be pointer-equal, just their contents, and the contents fall into >

Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken Gazette - Issue 15

On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:15:02PM +0100, Moritz Heidkamp wrote: > == 3. Chicken Talk > > Readers of issue 11 may remember the T-DOSE picture gallery > (http://www.call-cc.org/pictures/t-dose2010/index.html). Be informed > that it now contains a few additional pictures, some of which are > quite o

[Chicken-users] question about commit c157ff502829c6f2856df4a963d81a88ee241ebf

I have a question about commit c157ff502829c6f2856df4a963d81a88ee241ebf, the change for detecting cycles in equal? The last change in runtime.c is as follows: @@ -3865,7 +3876,8 @@ C_regparm C_word C_fcall C_equalp(C_word x, C_word y) C_header header; C_word bits, n, i; - C_stack_check

Re: [Chicken-users] EOF problem

On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:15:32PM -0500, David Dreisigmeyer wrote: > I'm getting the following error for the attached cl.scm file (OpenCL > 1.0 on OS X 10.6): > > $ csc -s -o cl.so cl.scm -framework OpenCL -framework Accelerate > Warning: (line 205) unterminated here-doc string literal `EOF' > Er

Re: [Chicken-users] "picky" scrutinizer mode

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 05:35:22AM -0500, Felix wrote: > Hi! > > I have added "-picky" to the experimental branch (I haven't created a > change request, since the impact is minimal and this feature is purely > optional). When given, the scrutinizer warns about undefined branches > in conditionals

Re: [Chicken-users] "picky" scrutinizer mode

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:22:20AM -0500, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] "picky" scrutinizer mode > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:11:28 -0700 > > > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 05:35:22AM -0500, Felix wrote: > >> Hi! > >>

[Chicken-users] subtle (and obvious) bugfix in genturfa'i

I've been working on a mysterious bug in genturfa'i where, after changing my memoization routine, a very few of my grammars would run forever--looping between two rules for no reason I could see. It wasn't all my grammars by a long shot, and when I turned off memoization the problem would go away.

[Chicken-users] compiling multiple scheme files into one module?

I would like to compile two separate scheme files, with different (declare ...) options, into a single module. Is it possible to do this? How do I format the (module ...) code and arrange for separate compilation of the two .scm files? -Alan -- .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi __

Re: [Chicken-users] compiling multiple scheme files into one module?

-0800, Kon Lovett wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Alan Post wrote: > > >I would like to compile two separate scheme files, with different > >(declare ...) options, into a single module. > > > >Is it possible to do this? How do I format the (module ...) code >

Re: [Chicken-users] compiling multiple scheme files into one module?

hicken.html#Chicken > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Alan Post > wrote: > > I would like to compile two separate scheme files, with different > > (declare ...) options, into a single module. > > > > Is it possible to do this?  How do I format the (mod

Re: [Chicken-users] Strange behaviour with sha1...

I don't even get as far as you do. I'm running OpenBSD 4.8 in a VMWare virtual machine. This is chicken 4.6.0. -Alan -- testing SHA1 -- -- testing SHA1 Strings -- -- testin

[Chicken-users] http://tests.call-cc.org/ has only 2010 results

The salmonella report front page: http://tests.call-cc.org/ Allows you to access reports by date, but only has links for 2010. Will you put a link in there for 2011? -Alan -- .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@

[Chicken-users] sqlite3 egg patches for chicken experimental branch

noop and milliseconds->time are removed (after being deprecated) in the experimental branch of chicken. The following patches allow the sqlite3 egg to compile against the chicken experimental branch. I'm least certain about the milliseconds-deprecate patch, as the sqlite3 egg is declared to use

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: sqlite3 egg patches for chicken experimental branch

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 09:52:52PM +0100, Felix wrote: > I recommend not to use fixnum mode, and to use fixnum-specific > operators instead. It can happen too easily that a library procedure > returns inexact results (for example for very large numbers that > exceed fixnum range). > > Apologies fo

[Chicken-users] long runtime of salmonella report

For the last two days, the Salmonella report has taken a signficantly longer time to run than it should. The problem is the test suite for the jbogenturfa'i egg. I'm tracking down a significant slowdown in the program, where one test suite was running in 20.6 seconds on the 6th and took 1524.6 and

[Chicken-users] Re: long runtime of salmonella report

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 04:26:45PM -0700, Alan Post wrote: > For the last two days, the Salmonella report has taken a > signficantly longer time to run than it should. > > The problem is the test suite for the jbogenturfa'i egg. > I'm tracking down a significant slowdow

Re: [Chicken-users] long runtime of salmonella report

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:31:10AM +0100, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: [Chicken-users] long runtime of salmonella report > Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 16:26:45 -0700 > > > For the last two days, the Salmonella report has taken a > > signficantly longer ti

Re: [Chicken-users] long runtime of salmonella report

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:50:57AM +0100, Felix wrote: > From: Alan Post > Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] long runtime of salmonella report > Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 16:42:19 -0700 > > > On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:31:10AM +0100, Felix wrote: > >> From: Alan Post > &g

[Chicken-users] Re: long runtime of salmonella report

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 04:26:45PM -0700, Alan Post wrote: > For the last two days, the Salmonella report has taken a > signficantly longer time to run than it should. > > The problem is the test suite for the jbogenturfa'i egg. > I'm tracking down a significant slowdow

[Chicken-users] Re: long runtime of salmonella report

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 01:07:28AM -0700, Alan Post wrote: > I haven't checked in a fix yet, but I'll do so ASAP. > I've checked in a fix, and the tests now run in under two minutes, down from 15 hours. Which is just what happens when you permit full backtracking but don&#

  1   2   >