From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Cygwin port of Guile 2.2 Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 21:35:59 +0200 Message-ID: <8760hjt5k0.fsf@pobox.com> References: <874ly49l54.fsf@joshua.spikycactus.dnsalias.com> <87lgr38jzd.fsf@pobox.com> <87pogft8c2.fsf@priss.frightenedpiglet.com> <878tmz7945.fsf@pobox.com> <87ziffcbwg.fsf@priss.frightenedpiglet.com> <87ziew4836.fsf@priss.frightenedpiglet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1493753781 6417 195.159.176.226 (2 May 2017 19:36:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 19:36:21 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Derek Upham Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 02 21:36:17 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d5daq-0001YH-PM for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 21:36:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33360 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5daw-0004nX-6U for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 15:36:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35674) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5dao-0004mP-46 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 15:36:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5dak-0003l1-Vp for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 15:36:14 -0400 Original-Received: from pb-sasl1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.66]:60600 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5dak-0003ii-RS for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 15:36:10 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017956B5E8; Tue, 2 May 2017 15:36:09 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=lhzoyh1h1wnN8v9cqVNzyl+RqR4=; b=ApLJsa fEFn9iJmZP/+b0Gpuf9BCqP1Yfy9LePy9VZWE423eaaQ/b9hu4Ud5ohsEtqaGZvT dZbGPkNNq7R4vz4caogCJZN//DUSt3wBFM9WlKBUF8+z73TAN2c7nXxWJK+AThSv t8Zhv/3b83DjiDQLJ3i908DN5RRiBnuMXjeuQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=e95B0uDzX/4k6GPgWhRizlJegqYqkwyI WDIq3/7Stl6hkH3rVA6Ba7vhQVlzbQL8V10OcXfvKYyUA4j0/T+0Y4bOjhpHItNV CVEy4KkS5UKQmAI1EFFhicblTF8D2VsanQvs8fzXHXwlECmigIGplD/Wht9zcfio 2Bnf9vIf8ls= Original-Received: from pb-sasl1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD7B6B5E7; Tue, 2 May 2017 15:36:08 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from clucks (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E05066B5E6; Tue, 2 May 2017 15:36:07 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87ziew4836.fsf@priss.frightenedpiglet.com> (Derek Upham's message of "Mon, 01 May 2017 13:48:13 -0700") X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 96F29BE0-2F6E-11E7-A544-07D2064AB293-02397024!pb-sasl1.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 64.147.108.66 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:19123 Archived-At: On Mon 01 May 2017 22:48, Derek Upham writes: > Running pthread_join() on a thread only guarantees that the thread has > returned an exit value. Would you mind providing a reference please? It is not that I don't believe you but I think it's important to know whether this is a bug in Guile or in the pthreads implementation. > the on_thread_exit() function has the comment > > /* This handler is executed in non-guile mode. */ > > at the top. Can someone explain what that means and what the > implications are? How can I safely invoke the contained code from > other contexts? https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Initialization.html Basically this code is not automatically traced by GC, it can't allocate, and it can't call (most) libguile functions. Andy