Mark H Weaver writes:
>> Two are stuck here:
>>
>> #0 __lll_lock_wait () at
>> ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/lowlevellock.S:135
>> #1 0x7f343ca69bb5 in __GI___pthread_mutex_lock (
>> mutex=mutex@entry=0x7f343d4f0f40 )
>> at ../nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c:80
>> #2 0x7f343d213
Hi Linas,
Linas Vepstas writes:
> I'm trying to understand how scm_jit_enter_mcode leads to
> scm_timed_lock_mutex ...
This simply means that 'lock-mutex' was called from Scheme, and
specifically from Scheme code that has been compiled to machine code by
our JIT compiler.
> I want to know who
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 05:40:39AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I've found a way to efficiently support both immediate IEEE binary-64
> doubles up to ~1.158e77 (with larger ones transparently allocated on the
> heap), and also immediate exact rationals with up to 54 binary digits
> (~16 decimal di
Mark H Weaver writes:
> I have a working draft implementation that roughly doubles the speed of
> a simple "substract 1.0 until negative" loop for inexact reals less than
> 2^256, compared with current 'master' (near 2.9.2). The same loop for
> exact rationals runs in ~70% of the time compared w
Earlier I wrote:
> There's also a nice way to extract the denominator from a fixrat: mask
> out the sign bit, shift right 5 bits, and interpret it as an IEEE
> double. The denominator will be the integer part of the resulting
> value, with the numerator in the fraction bits. Simply cast this dou
I've found a way to efficiently support both immediate IEEE binary-64
doubles up to ~1.158e77 (with larger ones transparently allocated on the
heap), and also immediate exact rationals with up to 54 binary digits
(~16 decimal digits), without restricting the 64-bit pointer space at
all, and without
I'm looking forward to it!
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:51 PM Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
> Hello comrades!
>
> What would you think of releasing ‘stable-2.2’ as 2.2.5?
>
> It’s great if you can do it, Mark, but otherwise I can do it.
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>
Hello comrades!
What would you think of releasing ‘stable-2.2’ as 2.2.5?
It’s great if you can do it, Mark, but otherwise I can do it.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
