cross-compilation, part II - Re: [Chicken-users] cross compilation with 2.7
On 11/4/07, john [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I wanted to update my cross compiled Chicken from 2.6 to 2.7 but ran into problems. I attempted a build with PLATFORM=linux but it borks at: gcc -fno-strict-aliasing -DHAVE_CHICKEN_CONFIG_H -c apply-hack.x86.s -o apply-hack.x86.o I am not sure what apply-hack does or what is needed for an ARM hack? apply-hack is a piece of assembly to circumvent the 128-argument problem. It is entirely optional, and a small script is used to find out the architecture for the build system. In a cross-compilation setting this doesn't make much sense, of course. Here you have to give the target arch manually. I have updated http://chicken.wiki.br/cross-compilation for the new build system. You will need a tarball (make dist) from the chicken repository trunk. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] stepwise visual execution of functions
On 11/4/07, Terrence Brannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After I develop a function, I want to see what happens to the input data as it hits each step of the function to make sure it is working correctly. For example, in the following function: (define (mraze a) (let* ([unboxed-a (unbox-array a)] [unboxed-l (array-list unboxed-a)] [item-shapes (map item-shape unboxed-l)] [data-ranks (map my-array-rank unboxed-l)] ) (if (all-equal? = item-shapes) (if (= (apply max data-ranks) 1) (apply rank-1 (flatten (map array-items unboxed-l))) #t) #f))) I would like to pass in a data-item, and then see the value of unboxed-a and then step once more and see the value of unboxed-l and so on, all the way through the procedure. Any suggestions for how to visually see what my functions are doing? You can try the ,step command in csi. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: chicken.pdf
Thanks, naturo. I have updated the documentation accordingly. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: Style Guide
William Ramsay wrote: Is there such a thing as a Chicken/Scheme style guide? [...] If there is such a thing as teaching an old dog new tricks I'd like to try. Your last sentence makes me think that you're referring to algorithm design, not mere syntax style. Things like learning to use closures and continuations effectively, learning to express iterative processes with recursive syntax, and so on. If that's the case, I'm finding SICP[1] and The * Schemer series[2] very interesting reads. Even if you already know most of the concepts and half the tricks in them, they are worth reading for the other half. Tobia [1] online at http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/ [2] by Daniel P. Friedman et al., available in most libraries and stores ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Style Guide
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 12:16:12PM +0100, Tobia Conforto wrote: William Ramsay wrote: Is there such a thing as a Chicken/Scheme style guide? [...] If there is such a thing as teaching an old dog new tricks I'd like to try. Your last sentence makes me think that you're referring to algorithm design, not mere syntax style. Things like learning to use closures and continuations effectively, learning to express iterative processes with recursive syntax, and so on. If that's the case, I'm finding SICP[1] and The * Schemer series[2] very interesting reads. Even if you already know most of the concepts and half the tricks in them, they are worth reading for the other half. +1 on that! -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music. -- Donald Knuth pgpmzs5rZvWL5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] heap size or macro problem
The first thing to check is whether you perform any Scheme-C calls
with callbacks into Scheme: if these are not properly declared as
safe,
since this always (sooner or later) leads to trouble.
wow thanks so much you have saved us days of work with this tip! this
is exactly what we are doing. a user scheme function gets added to a
JUCE scheduling/scheme thread, which then does a callback on the
fuctino at the correct time. during that callback the user's (scheme)
function will certainly call into C again, for example sending midi
notes to the output port. originally we were calling the user's
function (the 'closure' var) from the scheme thread using C_callback
like this:
{
double nexttime ;
C_word *elapsed_ptr;
C_word elapsed_word;
C_word closure;
closure = CHICKEN_gc_root_ref(gcroot);
elapsed_ptr = C_alloc(1);
elapsed_word = C_flonum( elapsed_ptr, time - start);
C_save( elapsed_word );
nexttime = C_c_double( C_callback(closure, 1));
}
i *think* this code was working but the downside is that every user
funcino has to be wrapped with error handling code to avoid crashes
under the callback... so we replaced that first version with one that
uses a define-external
(define-external (run_process (scheme-object closure) (double
elapsed)) double
( closure elapsed))
that get called like this:
nexttime = run_process( CHICKEN_gc_root_ref(closureGCRoot),
time - start);
which -- if it worked -- i think would be a better solution becuse
the we can put the error handling code in the external point instead
of inside every user function, eg:
(define-external ...)
(with-no-errors ( closure elapsed))
if these are not properly declared as safe,
since this always (sooner or later) leads to trouble.
so clearly we are not doing this right because nothing is declared as
safe however I dont see in the docs how to declare the run_process as
safe, can you help me out? or should we just use the first version
and wrap each clouser with error proctection boilerplate?
thanks!
--rick
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] heap size or macro problem
On 11/5/07, Rick Taube [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so clearly we are not doing this right because nothing is declared as safe however I dont see in the docs how to declare the run_process as safe, can you help me out? or should we just use the first version and wrap each clouser with error proctection boilerplate? I'm not sure yet that you do anything wrong. So this is an application that embeds compiled Scheme code into a C/C++ app, right? Do you run CHICKEN_run() once and does the Scheme code do a (return-to host)? In this situation, you don't need the safe versions of foreign-lambda[*] (I was refering to those, when I mentioned safe, i.e. foreign-safe-lambda[*]). You need them when you have Scheme code (embedded or not) that calls C that calls Scheme again. So if you use foreign-lambda's in your code that call back into Scheme, then replace them with foreign-safe-lambda. Anyway, it's not trivial to get all this right, and the error messages are often misleading. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] heap size or macro problem
I'm not sure yet that you do anything wrong. So this is an application
that embeds compiled Scheme code into a C/C++ app, right?
yes this is correct. we are trying to embed Chicken in our JUCE GUI
app for music.
Do you run CHICKEN_run() once and does the Scheme code do a
(return-to host)? In this situation, you don't need the safe
versions
of foreign-lambda[*] (I was refering to those, when I mentioned
safe, i.e. foreign-safe-lambda[*]).
yes and yes. (return-to-host) is the last line of our
ChickenBridge.scm file that we compiled to C++ and then compile/link
with our program:
csc -c++ -embedded -t ChickenBridge.scm
Then, in our C++ app the scheduler's init method starts up Chicken
like this, which includes chicken_run:
bool SchemeThread::init() {
int res;
C_word r;
char buffer[8192];
String text = T(Chicken Scheme);
// init chicken...
res = CHICKEN_initialize(0, 0, 0, (void*)C_grace_toplevel);
if (res==0) {
console-printError(T( Error: Chicken failed to initialize.
\n));
return false;
}
// run chicken...
res = CHICKEN_run(NULL);
if (res==0) {
console-printError(T( Error: Chicken failed to initialize.
\n));
return false;
}
// print chicken version info to Console Window:
res = CHICKEN_eval_string_to_string( (char*)(chicken-version),
buffer, 8192);
if (res0)
text = text + T(, version ) + String(buffer).unquoted();
text += T(\n(c) 2000-2007 Felix L. Winkelmann\n);
console-printMessage(text);
bzero(buffer, 8192);
if (res==0) {
console-printError(T( Error: Chicken failed to initialize.
\n));
return false;
}
CHICKEN_eval_string((require-extension srfi-18), r);
CHICKEN_eval_string((require-extension srfi-1), r);
..}
Anyway, it's not trivial to get all this right, and the error messages
are often misleading.
it sure isnt. we are *hoping* to call chicken funcs in realtime for
music, our initial rough tests last week were showing that the GC
doesnt really get in the way even with modest amounts of garbage
being generated on callbacks happening every 50ms. but we wanted to
get the error protection stuff in place so we could test with a
real situation.
thanks!
--rick
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] heap size or macro problem
Can you run your application under valgrind? sorry one important data point i forgot in my last posts: im running on osx 10.4.10 PPC. we are also testing on an osx 10.4.10 Intel where this problem is not showing up. I could compile the whole system under linux, i had been waiting to see if we could get things going in osx first. pinhead:~ hkt$ uname -a Darwin pinhead.music.uiuc.edu 8.10.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.10.0: Wed May 23 16:50:59 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.21.3~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Style Guide
William Ramsay wrote: Is there such a thing as a Chicken/Scheme style guide? [...] If there is such a thing as teaching an old dog new tricks I'd like to try. Your last sentence makes me think that you're referring to algorithm design, not mere syntax style. Things like learning to use closures and continuations effectively, learning to express iterative processes with recursive syntax, and so on. There is certainly a idiomatic style of Scheme, but I think the actual style as defined by the layout of the source code matters as well. Those two documents were useful reads to some who frets over such issues (me). Here's a related question for more experienced Schemers: In Dybvig, he states that the define form: (define square (lambda (x) (* x x))) is to be preferred to (define (square x) (* x x)) After reading that, I started using the first form religiously. Now I'm not so sure. For no small part because the text editor I use (TextMate) doesn't highlight the first form as a function definition but does highlight the second form. Anyone have an opinion? I'm not looking for an opinion, but perhaps a tip as to why one method might prove more useful as I release code or maintain code that I've already written. TIA, -M ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: Style Guide
Mark Fredrickson wrote: There is certainly a idiomatic style of Scheme, but I think the actual style as defined by the layout of the source code matters as well. Those two documents were useful reads to some who frets over such issues (me). Yes, I'm correcting my style based on those documents too. Here's a related question for more experienced Schemers: In Dybvig, he states that the define form: (define square (lambda (x) (* x x))) is to be preferred to (define (square x) (* x x)) After reading that, I started using the first form religiously. Now I'm not so sure. I'm no experienced schemer, but I like the second form best because it makes it visually clear how the function will be called: looking at (square x) it's obvious what the parameters and their formal names are. When I see a (square 3) later on in the code, I will recognize it instantly (visually) as an application of (define (square x) ...) Plus it's shorter. Tobia ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Style Guide
Mark Fredrickson wrote: Here's a related question for more experienced Schemers: In Dybvig, he states that the define form: (define square (lambda (x) (* x x))) is to be preferred to (define (square x) (* x x)) After reading that, I started using the first form religiously. Now I'm not so sure. For no small part because the text editor I use (TextMate) doesn't highlight the first form as a function definition but does highlight the second form. The second form. Shorter is better. Always, always, always. Sunnan ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: cross-compilation, part II - Re: [Chicken-users] cross compilation with 2.7
Thanks Felix. I managed to build from the svn trunk for my Linux ARM setup. I am having problems getting the cross Chicken running. I was able to build it but I am not able to set the correct correct compilers. In a previous version I specified them for the build with: TARGET_CC=/home/john/moko/build/tmp/cross/bin/arm-angstrom-linux-gnueabi-gcc TARGET_CXX=/home/john/moko/build/tmp/cross/bin/arm-angstrom-linux-gnueabi-g++ Incidently, ./arm-csc -cc-name reports: arm=linux-gcc which I guess is a meant to be 'arm-linux-gcc'. Cheers, John. On 05/11/2007, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/4/07, john [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I wanted to update my cross compiled Chicken from 2.6 to 2.7 but ran into problems. I attempted a build with PLATFORM=linux but it borks at: gcc -fno-strict-aliasing -DHAVE_CHICKEN_CONFIG_H -c apply-hack.x86.s -o apply-hack.x86.o I am not sure what apply-hack does or what is needed for an ARM hack? apply-hack is a piece of assembly to circumvent the 128-argument problem. It is entirely optional, and a small script is used to find out the architecture for the build system. In a cross-compilation setting this doesn't make much sense, of course. Here you have to give the target arch manually. I have updated http://chicken.wiki.br/cross-compilation for the new build system. You will need a tarball (make dist) from the chicken repository trunk. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] eggs tutorial
hi I'm reading the part about tests dir and run.scm. I've poke inside a few eggs, but couldn't figure out what should run.scm return? #t or #f ? The web page needs to be amended to include expected return value for run.scm. http://chicken.wiki.br/eggs%20tutorial#tests Is it ok, if I simply list all my test cases in run.scm? (use test) (test . ) (test . ) (test . ) .. Thanks. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] ok my first egg is ready
hi ok my first egg is ready. all test cases passed. here it is: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/math-linux/predicate-calculus.egg ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: cross-compilation, part II - Re: [Chicken-users] cross compilation with 2.7
On 11/6/07, john [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Felix. I managed to build from the svn trunk for my Linux ARM setup. I am having problems getting the cross Chicken running. I was able to build it but I am not able to set the correct correct compilers. In a previous version I specified them for the build with: TARGET_CC=/home/john/moko/build/tmp/cross/bin/arm-angstrom-linux-gnueabi-gcc TARGET_CXX=/home/john/moko/build/tmp/cross/bin/arm-angstrom-linux-gnueabi-g++ Incidently, ./arm-csc -cc-name reports: arm=linux-gcc which I guess is a meant to be 'arm-linux-gcc'. Hm. Could this be a typo in your make invocation? Can you build the cross chicken once again, and send me a build log? cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] eggs tutorial
On 11/6/07, naruto canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi I'm reading the part about tests dir and run.scm. I've poke inside a few eggs, but couldn't figure out what should run.scm return? #t or #f ? The web page needs to be amended to include expected return value for run.scm. http://chicken.wiki.br/eggs%20tutorial#tests A failed test script should simply throw an error or exit with a non-zero exit status. Is it ok, if I simply list all my test cases in run.scm? (use test) (test . ) (test . ) (test . ) .. Right. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] ok my first egg is ready
On 11/6/07, naruto canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi ok my first egg is ready. all test cases passed. here it is: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/math-linux/predicate-calculus.egg Thanks, Naruto! I have added the egg to the repository, it should be available soon. BTW, the current egg count is 348. Two more to go! cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
