On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 27, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Michele La Monaca mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net
wrote:
So writing down the options, we have:
(let* loop ((i (random N)) (ch (string-ref buf i)))
(do-something)
(if
From: Geoffrey lordgeoff...@optusnet.com.au
Subject: [Chicken-users] POP3 egg: issue and possible fix.
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 15:13:35 +1000
The commercial mail server i connect to sends a simple +OK after a
USER. It doesn't have any trailing characters, so this match from the
pop3.scm fetch
On the latest stable 4.8.0.3:
Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux systems? The make and make install went
fine but make check blew up early. Looking over the mailing list archives
somebody else got the same problem way back when and realized it was because
of some x86_64 test case but nobody
* John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:12]:
On the latest stable 4.8.0.3:
Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux systems? The make and make install went
fine but make check blew up early. Looking over the mailing list archives
somebody else got the same problem way back when and realized it
John Long scripsit:
Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux systems?
Yes, it definitely is. The problem is that we don't have a proper build
farm with sufficiently diverse machines, so support tends to crumble at
awkward moments.
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
If he has
Hi John,
On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:11:41 + John Long codeb...@inbox.lv wrote:
On the latest stable 4.8.0.3:
Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux systems?
Yes.
The make and make install went fine but make check blew up early.
What is the error you get?
Looking over the mailing list
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:15:21 -0400 John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
John Long scripsit:
Is chicken supported on 32 bit Linux systems?
Yes, it definitely is. The problem is that we don't have a proper build
farm with sufficiently diverse machines, so support tends to crumble at
On 05/28/13 10:11:41, John Long wrote:
On the latest stable 4.8.0.3:
[snip]
Haven't tried 4.8.0.3, but 4.8.0.1 builds and installs fine, and I'm
using it for a non-trivial app, which also works fine.
-John
--
John Maxwell KB3VLL j...@jmaxhome.com
Speaking just for me, I don't think I
Hi Christian,
Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just
let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list!
Thanks!
/jl
library tests ...
../chicken library-tests.scm -output-file a.c -verbose -include-path ..
Mario Domenech Goulart scripsit:
Actually, the only official build farm we have happens to be 32-bit
Linux . :-)
Yeah, I was actually thinking of my poor half-abandoned Cygwin. :-)
--
And it was said that ever after, if any John Cowan
man looked in that Stone, unless he had
* John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:25]:
Hi Christian,
Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just
let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list!
Yes, some more info would be nice. Did you just download the 4.8.0.3
tarball untarred it, ran make
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:36:11PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote:
* John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:25]:
Hi Christian,
Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just
let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list!
Yes, some more info
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:36:58PM +, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
Hey John
On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:25:09 + John Long codeb...@inbox.lv wrote:
Warning: in local unknown procedure,
in local unknown procedure,
in toplevel unknown procedure:
(library-tests.scm:168) in
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:25:09PM +, John Long wrote:
Hi Christian,
Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just
let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list!
Error: (library-tests.scm:210) assertion failed: (= (sin 42.0) (fpsin 42.0))
fpsin
Hey John
On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:25:09 + John Long codeb...@inbox.lv wrote:
Warning: in local unknown procedure,
in local unknown procedure,
in toplevel unknown procedure:
(library-tests.scm:168) in procedure call to `max', expected argument #1 of
type `number', but was given an
* John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:48]:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:36:11PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote:
* John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:25]:
Hi Christian,
Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just
let me know, I didn't want to
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:47:15PM +, John Long wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:36:11PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote:
Yes, some more info would be nice. Did you just download the 4.8.0.3
tarball untarred it, ran make make install make check?
Yes, except I didn't know how to
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:49:48PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:25:09PM +, John Long wrote:
Hi Christian,
Here's the part of the test that crashed. If you need the prior stuff just
let me know, I didn't want to post too hugely to the list!
Error:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:04:31PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote:
* John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:48]:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:36:11PM +0200, Christian Kellermann wrote:
* John Long codeb...@inbox.lv [130528 16:25]:
Hi Christian,
Here's the part of the test that
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:19:00PM +, John Long wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:49:48PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
It could be that your compiler is performing some optimization which causes
this value to be (slightly?) different.
It sounds like you nailed it. The tests run fine at -Os
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:20:14PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
Well, possibly the tests are wrong (flonum equality is Hard).
I'll have a look and see if this can be improved.
If it's indeed an optimization that causes a small difference in
flonums, it shouldn't cause any problems in practice so
Hello,
during the CHICKEN spring thing in Cologne I started to work on a new
egg [1] implementing the protocol buffer [2] serialization format, which
is now in a usable and tested state.
If you don't need or want to use a specific schema for your data, you
can use the protobuf egg as a generic
This is very welcome!
I wonder if this would be useful for storing data in a posix shared
memory block...
-Dan
On 5/28/2013 3:15 PM, Thomas Chust wrote:
Hello,
during the CHICKEN spring thing in Cologne I started to work on a new
egg [1] implementing the protocol buffer [2] serialization
On 2013-05-29 00:32, Dan Leslie wrote:
[...]
I wonder if this would be useful for storing data in a posix shared
memory block...
[...]
Hello Dan,
that is certainly possible, you would just combine serialize and
call-with-output-string to obtain data you can copy into a shared buffer
and
Huh, now that is useful!
https://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Unit%20lolevel#object-evict
Still, if I ever have call to use pshm for ipc between chicken and
not-chicken workers then this egg would probably be useful.
Thanks again,
-Dan
On 5/28/2013 5:24 PM, Thomas Chust wrote:
On 2013-05-29
25 matches
Mail list logo
