On 03/05/13 23:14, Mark H Weaver wrote:
FYI, here's what I'm hoping to get into Guile 2.0.8.
Mark
2.0.8 TODO
==
* [SUBMITTED] Refactor pending numerics patches.
* [SUBMITTED] Implement Dybvig and Burger's algorithm for printing
floats.
* [NEEDS REVISION] Fix BOM handling.
*
On 03/15/13 23:30, Andy Wingo wrote:
On Fri 15 Mar 2013 22:01, Brent Pinkney writes:
I am using partial continuations to resume a computation when an
external system returns with an answer.
I am using (call-with-prompt ...) and (abort-to-prompt)
When I resume the continuation in another threa
On 03/21/13 11:15, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Noah Lavine skribis:
I've thought for a while that if I had time (which I know I won't) I would
make a module called (linux) with bindings for non-POSIX Linux kernel
features. What do you think of this idea? If so, what do you think of
putting sendfile
On 03/21/13 11:43, Andy Wingo wrote:
On Fri 15 Mar 2013 22:01, Brent Pinkney writes:
When I resume the continuation in another thread, all works perfectly
UNLESS the continued execution throws and exception.
Then guile exits with a core dump.
By contrast if I resume the continuation in the sa
Hi guile hackers,
I'm experiencing the VM coring in a repeatable manner.
My application launches a number of threads, which pass objects
from one thread to another via queues (ice-9 q). To ensure thread-
safety, the queues are actually accessed via (container async-queue)
from guile-lib-0.2.2;
On 04/28/13 03:07, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 28 April 2013 03:57, Andrew Gaylard wrote:
Those 0x304 values look dodgy to me, and explain why the
SCM_SETCDR causes an invalid memory access.
0x304 is SCM_EOL.
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the feedback.
Are you saying that the 0x304 values are fine
On 04/29/13 12:10, Mark H Weaver wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 28 April 2013 03:57, Andrew Gaylard wrote:
Those 0x304 values look dodgy to me, and explain why the
SCM_SETCDR causes an invalid memory access.
(gdb) p *SCM2PTR(q)
$26 = {word_0 = 0x304, word_1 = 0x1039c4c20}
What's happening here is
sing both.
Mark
Agreed. In order to build industrial-strength applications in guile, it's
important to be able to answer questions such as "what is causing my
process' memory usage to grow?"
--
Andrew Gaylard
Hi Stefan,
This is definitely something that's of interest to me. Closures are one
of the great strengths of scheme, and have been very useful to me in the
past.
I'd love it for guile to have an "official" way to work with them,
including your load/save semantics. What's the format of the
Hi,
With the attached patch, I can build and run guile-1.8.8 on Solaris.
It seems that the old logic that used USRSTACK no longer works,
so I took it out.
Tested on Solaris 10u9, on both SPARC64 and x86_64.
- Andrew
--- guile-1.8.8/libguile/gc_os_dep.c.orig Mon Dec 13 19:25:01 2010
+++ guile-1.8
Hi,
The attached patch implements the scm_init_guile function on Solaris.
The detection of the stack parameters is done via a new(ish) Solaris
function, stack_getbounds() -- see
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19253-01/816-5168/stack-getbounds-3c/index.html
for details.
Tested on Solaris 10u9
[resending -- this time to the list. Sorry for the noise.]
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Thu 28 Apr 2011 17:33, Andrew Gaylard writes:
>
>> With the attached patch, I can build and run guile-1.8.8 on Solaris.
>> It seems that
Hi, I don't know if this is useful, but here's some more background...
The old code in guile-1.8.8/libguile/gc_os_dep.c used to do this:
# define STACKBOTTOM ((ptr_t) USRSTACK)
.. which is mentioned in the Solaris-10 headers...
$ find /usr/include/ | xargs grep USERLIMIT
/usr/include/sys/
13 matches
Mail list logo
