[Chicken-users] How easy is it to use Chicken in Windows XP
After struggling horribly, trying (and failing) to get ECL running in Windows I am really looking for a better experience.I tend to use "pure" Windows XP and free C/C++ tools so either GNU gcc is fine or MS Visual C++ 2005. Note that I don't have access to MSVC the commercial version. Is it possible to install and build a good working version of Chicken on Windows XP: 1. At all.2. Yes if you are a MAKE, Linux, Windows and C++ expert and have the patience of Job3. Yes, but only under Cygwin etc. (of which I know very little except they can be a pain to use/maintain as well) 4. Yes but only with the commercial MSVC or very specific versions of certain software.5. Yes but with some combination I haven't mentioned or thought of.6. YES Easily!!7. YES - I can download latest virus-free executable version for Windows from (please supply URL) Please let me know in detail how I go about this as I am not an expert in any of the above 1-5.(prays for 6 or 7 ...) ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Why is my mail being bounced for moderator approval Everytime?
I am and have been a member of the Chicken mail list for at least a week - why can't I post directly to the list without awaiting moderator approval? ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Why is my mail being bounced for moderator approval Everytime?
Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:21:29 +0100, sean.mymail wrote: > I am and have been a member of the Chicken mail list for at least a week - > why can't I post directly to the list without awaiting > moderator approval? Maybe because you were listed as: "U -- Delivery was disabled by the user via their personal options page." I have changed this (hope this was o.k.) And more problematic (?): your mail contains a strange CC: Please fix your mail program. Ciao Sven pgpmieuIsxcsg.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] How easy is it to use Chicken in Windows XP
Sean D wrote: After struggling horribly, trying (and failing) to get ECL running in Windows I am really looking for a better experience. I tend to use "pure" Windows XP and free C/C++ tools so either GNU gcc is fine or MS Visual C++ 2005. Note that I don't have access to MSVC the commercial version. Is it possible to install and build a good working version of Chicken on Windows XP: 1. At all. 2. Yes if you are a MAKE, Linux, Windows and C++ expert and have the patience of Job 3. Yes, but only under Cygwin etc. (of which I know very little except they can be a pain to use/maintain as well) 4. Yes but only with the commercial MSVC or very specific versions of certain software. 5. Yes but with some combination I haven't mentioned or thought of. 6. YES Easily!! 7. YES - I can download latest virus-free executable version for Windows from (please supply URL) Please let me know in detail how I go about this as I am not an expert in any of the above 1-5. (prays for 6 or 7 ...) I've never had any problem building Chicken with MSVC, using nmake and the included windows makefile. I believe I also built it once with gcc and cygwin, but only as a test. I use cygwin for its tools, not as a development target. ashley ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] How easy is it to use Chicken in Windows XP
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:10:28PM +0100, Sean D wrote: > 7. YES - I can download latest virus-free executable version for Windows > from (please supply URL) Perhaps this? http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/chicken-2.41-win32.zip -- Toby Butzon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
RE: [Chicken-users] How easy is it to use Chicken in Windows XP
After struggling horribly, trying (and failing) to get ECL running in Windows I am really looking for a better experience. I tend to use "pure" Windows XP and free C/C++ tools so either GNU gcc is fine or MS Visual C++ 2005. Note that I don't have access to MSVC the commercial version. Is it possible to install and build a good working version of Chicken on Windows XP: 6. YES Easily!! Please let me know in detail how I go about this as I am not an expert in any of the above 1-5. (prays for 6 or 7 ...) Answer == 6 --> It is relatively easy when you know how. You need the following tools: Darcs http://abridgegame.org/darcs Chicken 2.3 binary (2.41 may work too??) Win32 binaryhttp://www.call-with-current-continuation.org Latest chicken from darcs repository $ darcs get http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br/chicken MinGW + MSYShttp://www.mingw.org CMake 2.4.3 Alternatively, I have a tarball of build 2 // 425 that was built with MinGW + MSYS that you can have. Then all you need is to untar it in a suitable place, set CHICKEN_HOME to point to the chicken bin directory and add the same directory to your path and it should work fine. Ian ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] How easy is it to use Chicken in Windows XP
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:10:28 +0300, Sean D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After struggling horribly, trying (and failing) to get ECL running in Windows I am really looking for a better experience. I tend to use "pure" Windows XP and free C/C++ tools so either GNU gcc is fine or MS Visual C++ 2005. Note that I don't have access to MSVC the commercial version. Is it possible to install and build a good working version of Chicken on Windows XP: 1. At all. 2. Yes if you are a MAKE, Linux, Windows and C++ expert and have the patience of Job 3. Yes, but only under Cygwin etc. (of which I know very little except they can be a pain to use/maintain as well) 4. Yes but only with the commercial MSVC or very specific versions of certain software. 5. Yes but with some combination I haven't mentioned or thought of. 6. YES Easily!! 7. YES - I can download latest virus-free executable version for Windows from (please supply URL) Please let me know in detail how I go about this as I am not an expert in any of the above 1-5. (prays for 6 or 7 ...) Option #7 has worked just fine for me with the free msvc tools. Check http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/ for the latest win32 binaries ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] How easy is it to use Chicken in Windows XP
Ian Oversby wrote: 6. YES Easily!! Answer == 6 --> It is relatively easy when you know how. You need the following tools: Darcs http://abridgegame.org/darcs Chicken 2.3 binary (2.41 may work too??) Win32 binary http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org Latest chicken from darcs repository $ darcs get http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br/chicken MinGW + MSYS http://www.mingw.org CMake 2.4.3 These instructions are in INSTALL-CMake.txt, in current tarball distributions. We're very near to having a unified tarball distribution that allows both the GNU Autoconf or the CMake build to be used. I would say we'll have the capability within a week. Then it will be up to Felix when he wants to make his next tarball release. CMake is definitely what you want if you're doing MinGW. CMake is working for John Cowan on Cygwin as well; he tests it regularly. I may start recommending the CMake build for MSVC users. I will already recommend it for Visual Studio users, if you want to see the build layout from within Visual Studio. There are no .sln files in the standard tarball distribution; only CMake can generate them. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] How easy is it to use Chicken in Windows XP
Ian Oversby wrote: Chicken 2.3 binary (2.41 may work too??) Chicken 2.41 will of course work. The CMake build simply requires "Chicken 2.3 or better." It does not even have to use the same C compiler as what you intend to build. For instance, I use the Windows 2.3 MSVC binary as my canonical bootstrap compiler, to build the latest Cygwin, MinGW, and MSVC compilers. This is all explained in INSTALL-CMake.txt, not that I mind repeating it here. One of my profs back in college said, "Repetition is the key to all learning." Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] difficulty of ECL on Windows
Ian Oversby wrote: After struggling horribly, trying (and failing) to get ECL running in Windows I am really looking for a better experience. Can you please relate the difficulties you had? I am forever weighing in on matters of "Lisp or Scheme?" in comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.scheme. My mantra has been, "There are no good compiled open source Common Lisps on Windows." I dismissed ECL a year ago, figuring if it didn't use Windows suffix conventions for its nmake files, it couldn't be all that Windows oriented. I made some obstreperous public statements about this at the time. My dismissal may have been unfair, which is why I've been giving it the benefit of the doubt in public statements lately. But if it sucked for you, I'd like to know exactly what lengths you went to, in trying to get it to work. Then I could render an accurate opinion on ECL, and solidify my general claim, "There are no good compiled open source Common Lisps on Windows." And get Chicken converts. I'll change my tune when SBCL actually works on Windows. And I'm not helping them. Not out of any mean-spiritedness, but I did just spend 9 months to implement first-class Windows build support on Chicken. I want to use my investment, not churn. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] How easy is it to use Chicken in Windows XP
Brandon J. Van Every scripsit: > CMake is definitely what you want if you're doing MinGW. CMake is > working for John Cowan on Cygwin as well; he tests it regularly. Okay, time for some more updates. The last build had a line of v's and a line of ^'s in CMakeLists.txt and wouldn't work at all. This one gives the following errors: $ cmake /opt/chicken/darcs -- C_STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD=1 -- CHICKEN_HOME is NOT set in your environment. -- Searching system PATHs for Chicken. -- Chicken 2000300 required; using 2004100. You are obviously being too picky. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/batch-driver.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/c-backend.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/c-platform.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/chicken.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/compiler.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/eval.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/extras.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/library.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/lolevel.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/match.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/optimizer.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/pcre.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/posixunix.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/posixwin.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/pregexp.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/profiler.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/regexunix.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/scheduler.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/srfi-1.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/srfi-4.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/srfi-13.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/srfi-14.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/srfi-18.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/stub.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/support.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/tcp.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. -- Missing /opt/chicken/darcs/boot/utils.c.in Not an error, can generate if needed. CMake Error: Cannot find source file "/opt/chicken/cmake/nsample.scm" Felix's last set of patches has gotten rid of nsample altogether. Tried extensions .c .C .c++ .cc .cpp .cxx .m .M .mm .h .h++ .hm .hpp .hxx .in .txx CMake Error: CMake failed to properly look up cmSourceFile: nsample.scm CMake Error: File /opt/chicken/darcs/csc.scm.in does not exist. CMake Error: Error in cmake code at /opt/chicken/darcs/CMakeLists.txt:860: CONFIGURE_FILE Problem configuring file Current CMake stack: /opt/chicken/darcs/CMakeLists.txt;/usr/share/cmake-2.4.3/Modules/CMakeCInformation.cmake;/usr/share/cmake-2.4.3/Modules/CMakeCXXInformation.cmake CMake Error: Cannot find source file "/opt/chicken/cmake/csc.scm" I don't know what this is about at all. Tried extensions .c .C .c++ .cc .cpp .cxx .m .M .mm .h .h++ .hm .hpp .hxx .in .txx CMake Error: CMake failed to properly look up cmSourceFile: /opt/chicken/cmake/csc.scm -- Testing whether Darcs actually works. plink: unknown option "-O" Wed Aug 23 19:15:17 EST 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * - merged with Brandon's stuff: * uses chicken-defaults.h instead of chicken-paths.h * stack-size.h isn't needed anymore * removed nsample - configure.in: didn't AC_SUBST STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD -- Darcs works. Can create ChangeLog. -- Configuring done -- John Cowanhttp://ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] Economists were put on this planet to make astrologers look good. --Leo McGarry ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] How easy is it to use Chicken in Windows XP
John Cowan wrote: Brandon J. Van Every scripsit: CMake is definitely what you want if you're doing MinGW. CMake is working for John Cowan on Cygwin as well; he tests it regularly. Okay, time for some more updates. The last build had a line of v's and a line of ^'s in CMakeLists.txt and wouldn't work at all. Yeah yeah yeah, with the caveat that Felix came back from vacation, merged huge changes, and broke everything that I worked on for the past 4 days. We were each doing similar things but in different ways regarding pathname configuration, and we failed to communicate with each other about our solutions. I thought, for my part, that "vacation" meant he'd be off on a beach somewhere sipping a pina colada. Anyways, he's merged most of my code, but I have to finish the merge before CMake will work again. Meanwhile use ./configure, it built fine on my system last night. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Bug in new numbers.egg dependencies
I'm not sure if the problem is with the egg or with chicken-setup, but when installing numbers.egg on an egg-free system, it correctly notes that it needs both silex.egg and easyffi.egg, but unfortunately tries to build the latter egg first, which fails. Installing silex.egg by hand cures the problem, but only if you know to do that. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] In might the Feanorians / that swore the unforgotten oath brought war into Arvernien / with burning and with broken troth. and Elwing from her fastness dim / then cast her in the waters wide, but like a mew was swiftly borne, / uplifted o'er the roaring tide. --the Earendillinwe ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] How easy is it to use Chicken in Windows XP
Brandon J. Van Every wrote: These instructions are in INSTALL-CMake.txt, in current tarball distributions. Hmmm... reading is good for you after all. I wish I hadn't bothered spending the time working it out myself now (not that it took that long in fact - it is reasonably logical). Ian ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] nsample and benchmarking in general
felix winkelmann wrote: - nsample is gone. I still think benchmarking for nursery size makes sense, but... The right way to do nsample (the program that tries to determine a good stack size for Chicken) is under controlled benchmarking conditions. Certainly when we did OpenGL benchmarking back at DEC, we didn't take just 3 samples, and we didn't do it on machines where we were answering e-mail. In fact, we'd strip those benchmarking machines to the bare minimum, as much as we could honestly get away with. Revenues for our OpenGL boxes depended on good benchmarks, and the OpenGL ARB did have ways of punishing people for cheating. If you want to work on a controlled benchmark for nsample and include it in the benchmark directory, I can help with that, or actually do it at some later date. I just don't have time right now. But, my stack-size.cmake code does do the basics of multiple sampling. For maintainability, it would be best to rewrite it in Scheme. Benchmarking shouldn't be done at build time anyways. I consider CMake to be appropriate for "canonical build problems," not any old scripting problem. A proper benchmark script would: - do lotsa runs - warn the user not to use their machine during the benchmarking - measure the variance of the runs and declare them invalid if they're way off. This could be due to the user spacing out and checking his e-mail, other network and driver activity, or the architecture just may not have a good value for the stack size. - have a method of submitting the runs to a centralized database at the Chicken website - have server-side metrics for the variance of submitted runs - merge runs deemed "high quality" into a .txt file database of believed-good stack size values - evaluate all of this with respect to target CPU, machine, memory configs, etc. and include all that info as part of the submission This kind of mechanism would be generally useful for evaluating, improving, and promoting the performance of Chicken in general. Conceivably, all the benchmarks could use the same mechanism, and submit to the same database. Wrinkle: it would have to be very easy to recompile for a different stack size. If the stack size can be set at runtime, that would be ideal. If it's not easy for a user to try different stack sizes, they're not going to. At least, not in any widespread way. You'll get a few speed freaks here and there trying it out, and your benchmark submissions will reflect the systems of speed freaks, not of systems in general. Cheers, Brandon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Doubts about the postgresql egg
Hello,
I'm trying to use the postgres egg and I have some doubts about how to
use it.
A basic (maybe silly) question: if I just want to perform an
`insert', `create table' or something that doesn't return data
from tables, do I have to use something like:
(pg:query-for-each
(lambda (_) _)
"insert something into my-table" conn)
or is there a better way to do that?
Now a problem I'm having with pg:query-tuples (chicken 2.41). I have a
simple database:
$ psql test
Welcome to psql 8.0.4, the PostgreSQL interactive terminal.
Type: \copyright for distribution terms
\h for help with SQL commands
\? for help with psql commands
\g or terminate with semicolon to execute query
\q to quit
test=> \d test
Table "public.test"
Column | Type | Modifiers
+--+---
v1 | text |
v2 | text |
test=> select * from test;
v1 | v2
+
a | b
(1 row)
If I try the following code:
,[ test.scm ]
| #!/usr/bin/csi -script
|
| (use postgresql)
|
| (let ((db (pg:connect '((dbname . "test")
| (pg:query-tuples "select * from test" db)
| (pg:close db))
`
I get:
$ ./test.scm
Error: Wrong seed count
(expected 1)
(got 0)
Call history:
(##sys#require (quote postgresql))
(pg:connect (quote ((dbname . "test"
(pg:query-tuples "select * from test" db) <--
I get the expected result when I use pg:query-for-each:
,[ test2.scm ]
| #!/usr/bin/csi -script
|
| (use postgresql)
|
| (let ((db (pg:connect '((dbname . "test")
| (pg:query-for-each
| (lambda (tuple)
|(pp tuple))
| "select * from test" db)
| (pg:close db))
`
$ ./test2.scm
#("a" "b")
Is there something I'm missing about pg:query-tuples?
Best wishes,
Mario
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
