Hi Neil,
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, I've committed this now, with...
Thanks!
Ludo'.
2008/9/15 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Neil,
>
> "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hopefully nearly finishing this off now...!
>
> Great, thanks!
OK, I've committed this now, with...
+struct port_and_swap_buffer {
>>>
>>> Please follow the GNU style. :-)
>>
>> Well
le_color_border = "FF";
google_color_bg = "FF";
google_color_link = "006792";
google_color_url = "006792";
google_color_text = "000000";
//-->
Re: [PATCH] Add a `read' method for ports
Ludovic Courtès
Re: [PATCH] Add a
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 01:23:39PM +0800, Wilkinson, Alex wrote:
> 0n Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 09:28:28PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:37:18AM +0800, Wilkinson, Alex wrote:
> >> 0n Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 09:32:07AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >>
2008/9/15 Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> 2008/7/16 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> My post also contained a `uniform-vector-read!' benchmark, which showed
>> a noticeable performance improvement on unbuffered ports. Could you try
>> (and commit) that also?
>
> Yes, I'll do that sho
Hopefully nearly finishing this off now...!
2008/7/16 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Likewise, `scm_c_read ()' might raise an exception, so we may need a
>>> `dynwind' here (my original patch for `uniform-vector-read!' did that).
>>
>> This is covered by the dynwind inside scm_c_read, i
Hi Neil,
Can you consider updating and committing your patch to 1.8? It's one of
the things that I think should go in before we release 1.8.6.
Thanks,
Ludo'.
Good evening!
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/6/24 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> These arguments make a lot of sense in 1.8. In the longer run, though,
>> I'd prefer to see `fill_input' superseded by a `read' method akin to
>> what I proposed. What do you think?
>
>
2008/6/24 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Sorry for the delay, I was off-line last week.
No problem!
> "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Agreed. Yesterday I was worried about possible confusion from
>> bypassing a port's read buffer at a time when the read buffer
2008/7/15 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Neil,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Other than that, I'm OK with your patch.
>
> Can you update your patch? (Note how I subtly moved the burden from me
> to you. :-))
Yes, planned for this evening!
Neil
Hi Neil,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Other than that, I'm OK with your patch.
Can you update your patch? (Note how I subtly moved the burden from me
to you. :-))
Thanks,
Ludo'.
Hi Neil,
Sorry for the delay, I was off-line last week.
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed. Yesterday I was worried about possible confusion from
> bypassing a port's read buffer at a time when the read buffer has some
> data in it. But in fact this is not a problem, because
>
Hi Ludovic,
I hope you don't mind if I continue to pursue this a little...
2008/6/12 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Neil,
>
> "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> So, one way of solving this would be for an `unbuffered' port
>> temporarily to get a buffer of the right size, a
Hi Neil,
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, one way of solving this would be for an `unbuffered' port
> temporarily to get a buffer of the right size, and then to use the
> fill_input logic as it currently stands. That would achieve your
> objective of mapping onto a single N-byte r
2008/6/11 Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I haven't thought through all the cases yet, but it feels as though
> there should be a nice answer here. For scm_c_read and
> scm_uniform_vector_read, for example, the callers already have a
> buffer, so all we need is a way to temporarily use that a
Hi Ludovic,
2008/6/9 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Neil,
>
> "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Sorry for not commenting before... I've reviewed the history, and
>> started looking through the patches, and I'm feeling (possibly)
>> confused. Am I correct in thinking that
Hi Neil,
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry for not commenting before... I've reviewed the history, and
> started looking through the patches, and I'm feeling (possibly)
> confused. Am I correct in thinking that the "problem" here (which you
> are aiming to solve) only affects un
2008/6/8 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello Guilers!
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> The attached patch aims to allow an `scm_c_read ()' call for N bytes to
>> translate into a `read(2)' for N bytes in the case of unbuffered file
>> ports (such as sockets); it also al
Hello Guilers!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> The attached patch aims to allow an `scm_c_read ()' call for N bytes to
> translate into a `read(2)' for N bytes in the case of unbuffered file
> ports (such as sockets); it also allows the port's buffer to be bypassed
> when more data
Hello,
This is a followup to these threads:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel/6549
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel/7155 (to a lesser extent)
The attached patch aims to allow an `scm_c_read ()' call for N bytes to
translate into a `read(2)' for N bytes in the case
20 matches
Mail list logo
