2014/1/14 Panicz Maciej Godek
> Oh, I just realized that each thread was created in a new closure anyway,
> so they weren't able to share the variable. Sorry for the confusion.
>
It was a confusion, because the lexical scopes of threads are obviously
shared.
Oh, I just realized that each thread was created in a new closure anyway,
so they weren't able to share the variable. Sorry for the confusion.
(sorry, I accidentally pressed ctrl+return, which caused my mail client to
send the message).
So here's the code:
(for-each
(lambda(i)
(let ((thread (call-with-new-thread
(lambda ()
(sleep (+ (random 10) 2))
(format #t "w
Hi Andrew,
Sorry for the late reply.
On Fri 02 Sep 2011 16:29, Andrew Gaylard writes:
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0xfd7ffe89c257 in __lwp_park () from /lib/64/libc.so.1
> #1 0xfd7ffe8941f6 in mutex_lock_queue () from /lib/64/libc.so.1
> #2 0xfd7ffe894ca8 in mutex_lock_impl () from /lib/64/li
"Pach Roman (DGS-EC/EHS2)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
Hello!
> I have tried to move my software from guile-1.6 to 1.8.
> The part using threads did not want to run.
> So I tried a small test:
>
> guile> (use-modules (ice-9 threads))
> guile> (make-thread (lambda () '()))
>
> and become
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> Hmm. I could be way off base here, but what about
> protecting s_mutexes with a scm_permanent_object() ?
I am:
for (int i=0; ihttp://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
Tomas Zerolo wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 11:24:34PM -0400, Alan Grover wrote:
>>Though I read something recently that claimed some thread
>>(mis-)implementations are more costly than a fork, and often more costly
>>than you'd hope. Apparently, the Linux 2.6 thread implementation is in
>>user-s
Alan Grover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> What would be the comprehensive list of calls that block all threads?
> How do you figure that out?
`gethost' is a bad one, it disappears deep into libc so select or
whatever doesn't help. I ended up forking a subprocess to make the
call. Or I guess th
