On Oct 2 2011, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Kon (or maybe Felix)
On Sep 1 2011, Kon Lovett wrote:
Probably of no use to you but … When I added all the extra unix
(Chicken v2 I think) signals stuff I figured (ha) that a Scheme
signal handler could only perform operations that accessed existing
structures, no heap mutation. I used handlers that basically only
set flags.
Is there a way to verify that signal handlers can not allocate
on the heap?
As far as I understand runtime.c this should be true.
But it's fairly complicated to reason here.
It would be very, very helpful to be sure about that one.
Since my eat-all-mem issue was gone all too suddenly ...
Now I tried to re-enable the old handler invocation to confirm
that the old issue would come back.
So far it did not - which is confusing.
To summarize: no reason for confusion: "so far" meant: about 20
min. trying to force it. Sometimes it's easier to just wait :-/
At least it reduces confusion. A bit, that is.
If I could knew for sure that signal handlers may not touch the heap,
I would know that the approach to accept the higher latency in exchange
for the more natural coding of signal handlers would be worth the
time.
Alan: DON'T enable the normal signal handling. It might work some
seemingly infinite time. But eventually goes into EAM mode.
No theory why; just observation so far.
/Jörg
PS: If it eventually turns out to be true that the signal handler
has been the issue I had. Plus it would turn out to be verifiable
that always running with interrupts disabled does not eventually
harm normal behaviour. ... THEN I'd call that a productive time!
We could leave quite some code with the garbage collector.
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users