Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:31 PM, felix winkelmann bunny...@gmail.com wrote: In interpreted code, the finalizers do not trigger at all, even when you exit csi via (exit). Hi! I have reverted the original change that caused this for the time being. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:56 AM, felix winkelmann bunny...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com wrote: I am seeing finalizers fail to execute on recent SVN and I think it is the result of this change. I backed out the patch and it works okay again. Is the behaviour identical for compiled code? No, it works correctly for compiled code. They trigger immediately after (gc #t). In interpreted code, the finalizers do not trigger at all, even when you exit csi via (exit). Hm... I think this is related to the fact, that interpreter environments are managed differently (the closure representation in the interpreter is a simple linked list of environments, so it is possible that more indirect references to finalizers are left. But this should work. Have to investigate. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:03 AM, felix winkelmann bunny...@gmail.com wrote: Please try this [finalizer patch]. Hi. I am seeing finalizers fail to execute on recent SVN and I think it is the result of this change. I backed out the patch and it works okay again. On Version 3.4.10 - SVN rev. 13079 - macosx-unix-gnu-x86 and Version 4.0.0x5 - SVN rev. 13079 - macosx-unix-gnu-x86 #;1 (let ((abc (vector 5))) (set-finalizer! abc (lambda (x) (print final))) (void)) #;2 (gc #t) 142744 On Version 3.3.10 - SVN rev. 11733 - macosx-unix-gnu-x86, and on 4.0.0x5 rev. 13079 with reversed runtime.c patch: #;1 (let ((abc (vector 5))) (set-finalizer! abc (lambda (x) (print final))) (void)) #;2 (gc #t) final; right 139240 ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:03 AM, felix winkelmann bunny...@gmail.com wrote: Please try this [finalizer patch]. Hi. I am seeing finalizers fail to execute on recent SVN and I think it is the result of this change. I backed out the patch and it works okay again. On Version 3.4.10 - SVN rev. 13079 - macosx-unix-gnu-x86 and Version 4.0.0x5 - SVN rev. 13079 - macosx-unix-gnu-x86 #;1 (let ((abc (vector 5))) (set-finalizer! abc (lambda (x) (print final))) (void)) #;2 (gc #t) 142744 On Version 3.3.10 - SVN rev. 11733 - macosx-unix-gnu-x86, and on 4.0.0x5 rev. 13079 with reversed runtime.c patch: #;1 (let ((abc (vector 5))) (set-finalizer! abc (lambda (x) (print final))) (void)) #;2 (gc #t) final; right 139240 Hi, Jim! Is the behaviour identical for compiled code? cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:56 AM, felix winkelmann bunny...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com wrote: I am seeing finalizers fail to execute on recent SVN and I think it is the result of this change. I backed out the patch and it works okay again. Is the behaviour identical for compiled code? No, it works correctly for compiled code. They trigger immediately after (gc #t). In interpreted code, the finalizers do not trigger at all, even when you exit csi via (exit). ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo a...@freaks-unidos.net wrote: Please try attached patch. I have added it to trunk and the chicken-3 branch, and did some tests, but testing finalization is always somewhat difficult. I tried the patch (on 3.4.0) and it did not work. Running in csi the original code in my report, (define x (list 1 2 3)) (begin (set-finalizer! x (lambda (o) (format #t Delete: ~A~% o))) #t) (define y (list 4 5 6)) (begin (set-finalizer! y (let ((p x)) (lambda (o) (format #t Delete: ~A: ~A~% o p #t) (gc #t) (set! x #f) (gc #t) , still produces the Delete (1 2 3) message, which it shouldn't. You're right. My bad. I'll try once more. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
Please try this one.
cheers
felix
Index: runtime.c
===
--- runtime.c (revision 12851)
+++ runtime.c (working copy)
@@ -2706,6 +2706,10 @@
for(gcrp = gc_root_list; gcrp != NULL; gcrp = gcrp-next)
mark(gcrp-value);
+/* mark finalizer procedures: */
+for(flist = finalizer_list; flist != NULL; flist = flist-next)
+ mark(flist-finalizer);
+
mark_system_globals();
}
else {
@@ -2770,7 +2774,6 @@
for(flist = finalizer_list; flist != NULL; flist = flist-next) {
mark(flist-item);
- mark(flist-finalizer);
++fcount;
}
@@ -2780,9 +2783,6 @@
else {
j = fcount = 0;
- for(flist = finalizer_list; flist != NULL; flist = flist-next)
- mark(flist-finalizer);
-
for(flist = finalizer_list; flist != NULL; flist = flist-next) {
if(j C_max_pending_finalizers) {
if(!is_fptr(C_block_header(flist-item)))
@@ -2797,7 +2797,7 @@
finalizers_checked = 1;
if(pending_finalizer_count 0 gc_report_flag)
- C_printf(C_text([GC] finalizers pending for rescan: %d (%d live)\n),
+ C_printf(C_text([GC] finalizers pending: %d (%d live)\n),
pending_finalizer_count, live_finalizer_count);
goto rescan;
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo a...@freaks-unidos.net wrote: Please try attached patch. I have added it to trunk and the chicken-3 branch, and did some tests, but testing finalization is always somewhat difficult. I tried the patch (on 3.4.0) and it did not work. Running in csi the original code in my report, (define x (list 1 2 3)) (begin (set-finalizer! x (lambda (o) (format #t Delete: ~A~% o))) #t) (define y (list 4 5 6)) (begin (set-finalizer! y (let ((p x)) (lambda (o) (format #t Delete: ~A: ~A~% o p #t) (gc #t) (set! x #f) (gc #t) , still produces the Delete (1 2 3) message, which it shouldn't. I'm pretty sure it works. Is it possible that you mixed up two different installations? cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
Please try attached patch. I have added it to trunk and the chicken-3 branch, and did some tests, but testing finalization is always somewhat difficult. I tried the patch (on 3.4.0) and it did not work. Running in csi the original code in my report, (define x (list 1 2 3)) (begin (set-finalizer! x (lambda (o) (format #t Delete: ~A~% o))) #t) (define y (list 4 5 6)) (begin (set-finalizer! y (let ((p x)) (lambda (o) (format #t Delete: ~A: ~A~% o p #t) (gc #t) (set! x #f) (gc #t) , still produces the Delete (1 2 3) message, which it shouldn't. Alejo. http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/ ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:36 PM, felix winkelmann bunny...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo
a...@freaks-unidos.net wrote:
I have a question about finalizers.
If you run the following in csi:
(define x (list 1 2 3))
(begin (set-finalizer! x (lambda (o) (format #t Delete: ~A~% o))) #t)
(define y (list 4 5 6))
(begin (set-finalizer! y (let ((p x)) (lambda (o) (format #t Delete: ~A:
~A~% o p #t)
(gc #t)
(set! x #f)
(gc #t)
Why do you get Delete: (1 2 3), the output of the finalizer for x,
even though the finalizer for y depends on the value of x?
Am I misunderstanding the way finalizer procedures get executed?
A bug. The finalizer itself is not considered in the calculation whether
something is still referenced or not (I think). I have to investigate.
Hi!
Please try attached patch. I have added it to trunk and the chicken-3
branch, and did some tests, but testing finalization is always somewhat
difficult.
cheers,
felix
Index: runtime.c
===
--- runtime.c (revision 12830)
+++ runtime.c (working copy)
@@ -2701,7 +2701,8 @@
/* Mark collectibles: */
for(msp = collectibles; msp collectibles_top; ++msp)
if(*msp != NULL) mark(*msp);
-
+
+/* mark GC roots: */
for(gcrp = gc_root_list; gcrp != NULL; gcrp = gcrp-next)
mark(gcrp-value);
@@ -2779,6 +2780,9 @@
else {
j = fcount = 0;
+ for(flist = finalizer_list; flist != NULL; flist = flist-next)
+ mark(flist-finalizer);
+
for(flist = finalizer_list; flist != NULL; flist = flist-next) {
if(j C_max_pending_finalizers) {
if(!is_fptr(C_block_header(flist-item)))
@@ -2786,7 +2790,6 @@
}
mark(flist-item);
- mark(flist-finalizer);
}
}
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] newbie: questions about set-finalizer!
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo a...@freaks-unidos.net wrote: I have a question about finalizers. If you run the following in csi: (define x (list 1 2 3)) (begin (set-finalizer! x (lambda (o) (format #t Delete: ~A~% o))) #t) (define y (list 4 5 6)) (begin (set-finalizer! y (let ((p x)) (lambda (o) (format #t Delete: ~A: ~A~% o p #t) (gc #t) (set! x #f) (gc #t) Why do you get Delete: (1 2 3), the output of the finalizer for x, even though the finalizer for y depends on the value of x? Am I misunderstanding the way finalizer procedures get executed? A bug. The finalizer itself is not considered in the calculation whether something is still referenced or not (I think). I have to investigate. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
