From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: debugging guile runtime Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:07:35 +0200 Message-ID: <877h5t70iw.fsf@pobox.com> References: <20110829125030.GB30079@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1314824873 30253 80.91.229.12 (31 Aug 2011 21:07:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: rixed@happyleptic.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 31 23:07:49 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qys0i-0003m0-VP for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:07:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51050 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qys0h-0003cD-Vd for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:07:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51255) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qys0d-0003c2-IT for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:07:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qys0c-0007aH-4s for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:07:43 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:36630 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qys0b-0007a4-PQ for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:07:42 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F0D17311; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:07:40 -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=IIzaObr4Lv+RRS7bj4BJk2dnd8E=; b=kSlsHK mGVIIs43ljxI++jGLNXrAv+UcHpsurpvaggb8k+3CdMbZHywJA2cReRd4VLzjK3E TSAT4NasU9sb0DGac4M9brRMTSvTiLz178hD1rWN3xjayik/e2MT0dc0Sg1rzGaF KcFW8fzg7rSj9LE0YUlgna4QTV1EjokUWhECs= 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=GG/l2ZxLqDxS12FbE72wgWQmpgCyUn2N +6HZdXUyBNwurTm60mu9GNl+kaPn9/dBPM4+Jtyw/4Tvo5y4SUmJvHGtoYBiveBo reGeEr5JzPUXwTMbUAhOmNdxyz27G6rQhVZkXHVOttfk57m+55aE5PirLhMe7EFW IrutZ2gTHs0= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087347310; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:07:40 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55F3D730F; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:07:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20110829125030.GB30079@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> (rixed@happyleptic.org's message of "Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:50:30 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 426D73E8-D415-11E0-B32A-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:8756 Archived-At: Hi Cedric, Let me first thank you for your patience! It is excellent having someone test the edges of Guile, and to stay around with us while we fix them :-) On Mon 29 Aug 2011 14:50, rixed@happyleptic.org writes: > #1 ports are not thread safe (and any other thread safety issues) ; In general I think this issue needs to be split up between issues with port buffers and other issues; while it might be helpful to you to have a tracker bug, it's not helpful to me to conflate things that require different fixes. So! As you say, not thread-safe. But can we fix it in 2.0? I am not sure. We can add a mutex onto the end of scm_t_port. But it seems that ignoring ABI compatibility might allow us to focus on the solution more easily. What is your target? How much are you willing to do yourself? > #2 fork may freeze in some occurrence ; I assume this is because of the port-table mutex bug that you posted earlier? We should be able to fix this with an atfork. > #3 the use of select prevent the extended app to open more than 1024 > files ; I recall something about this; can you give a link to a bug? If there isn't one, can you file one? > #4 fork does not close all open files. This won't change in 2.0. You can do something in an atfork, but... I'm not sure this is the right thing. The POSIX behavior was well-considered, and we should be hesitant to change it without a good reason. > #5 new syntax definitions are not loaded by compiler Hmm? Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/