What’s the underlying problem you’re trying to model? On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:56 AM Phyx <loneti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh, I see :( I guess it's not that easy of a fix then. Perhaps the > RTS could use a new intrinsic for blocking on foreign state > > Yeah, that's what I was/am currently working on, "IOPort" has much of the > same property of MVar but doesn't have this deadlock guarantee and only > supports a single put/take at a time. > But debugging CMM is... not fun :( so I was wondering if I was just > missing something with the existing mechanisms. > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:23 AM Phil Ruffwind <r...@rufflewind.com> wrote: > >> > I did try removing this check to see, but it really didn't like that. It >> > caused GC to be triggered over and over again as the RTS tried >> desperately >> > to find something to do, doesn't seem to consider "do nothing" as a >> valid >> > state. >> >> Oh, I see :( I guess it's not that easy of a fix then. Perhaps the RTS >> could use a new intrinsic for blocking on foreign state. >> > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
