From: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: thoughts on ports
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:21:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874niba9mk.fsf@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871udi41wp.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic Courtès"'s message of "Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:27:50 +0100")
On Fri 18 Jan 2013 22:27, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> skribis:
>
>> As a thought experiment, I don't see why things should have to slow
>> down. Master has `scm_c_take_gc_bytevector', which can be used to wrap
>> the existing scm_t_port::write_buf, ::read_buf, and ::putback_buf
>> members. At the cost of three allocations per port and three words per
>> allocation (bytevector tag, length, and pointer), we could give access
>> to these internal buffers to Scheme without affecting the C code at all.
>>
>> We could go farther and allocate the buffers as bytevectors directly,
>> which would entail an additional indirection for C to get at the length
>> and data, but the length and data would all be contiguous anyway so in
>> practice I don't see it being too bad.
>
> Yes, that seems doable. What was the initial goal already?
The goal was to be able to provide Scheme functions that operate on
ports, but that can suspend the operation via an abort-to-prompt if it
will block. This can only be done if we are not recursing through C.
Exposing the fundamental buffers lets port operations to be implemented
in Scheme (while also allowing the C implementation).
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-20 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-08 20:21 thoughts on ports Andy Wingo
2012-04-09 19:15 ` Mike Gran
2012-04-09 20:21 ` Noah Lavine
2012-04-10 22:11 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-01-17 14:40 ` Andy Wingo
2013-01-18 21:27 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-01-20 20:21 ` Andy Wingo [this message]
2013-01-20 22:11 ` Ludovic Courtès
2012-04-11 18:36 ` Mark H Weaver
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=874niba9mk.fsf@pobox.com \
--to=wingo@pobox.com \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=ludo@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).