For quite some time I've been wondering why my app runs only about
twice as fast on chicken compared to rscheme (given the benchmark
style performance of chicken code).
strace was my friend to pin this down to process-wait. From the
manual: "Suspends the current process...Note that suspending th
Hello,
> * Message sent: 01 Sep 2011 14:16:44 +0200 *
> For quite some time I've been wondering why my app runs only about
> twice as fast on chicken compared to rscheme (given the benchmark
> style performance of chicken code).
> strace was my friend to pin this down to process-wait. Fr
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:02:18AM -0700, chi...@bmedctr.com wrote:
>Hello,
>> * Message sent: 01 Sep 2011 14:16:44 +0200 *
>> For quite some time I've been wondering why my app runs only about
>> twice as fast on chicken compared to rscheme (given the benchmark
>> style
On Sep 1 2011, chi...@bmedctr.com wrote:
The idea is to convert (process-wait pid #f) into
(process-wait pid #t) and block the current tread only
when the first result is zero.
Sounds indeed frustrating. I've run across similar problems while writing
a multitasking web server. It uses process
Hi Jörg,
On 01 Sep 2011 19:55:17 +0200 Jörg F. Wittenberger
wrote:
> On Sep 1 2011, chi...@bmedctr.com wrote:
>
>>Hope I haven't missed something you were getting at.
>
> Not exactly. But at this time my bet is different issue.
> My hypothesis is that there's a garbage collection triggered
> w
Hi Mario,
reproducing on *vanilla* 4.7.2 would be a challenge.
I need to mention that I'm still running from a modified scheduler
(uses llrb-trees instead of linear lists and some more fixes,
which have not yet made it into chicken core - probably since
I'm using a procedural macro expansion whic
> Not exactly. But at this time my bet is different issue.
> My hypothesis is that there's a garbage collection triggered
> within the signal handler and this interferes with stack layout
> or the other way around, the signal handler is run during gc.
I possibly misunderstood, but just in case I
On Sep 2, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Felix wrote:
> The signal handlers that you set with "set-signal-handler!" are not
> executed at interrupt time. They just save the signal number and
> provoke a GC on the next heap-check that happens to execute. Then the
> interrrupt-processing wraps up the execution s
Anyone care to explain why this fails?
(receive (in out pid)
(process "cat")
(close-output-port out)
(close-output-port in)
(process-wait pid))
I get:
Error: (process-wait) waiting for child process failed - No child processes:
7548
This is in Chicken 2.731 and is curr
Ah, OK, so apparently this is because Chicken will do the waitpid
syscall automatically when both in and out get closed.
Alejo.
http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listi
From: Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Chicken-users] process-wait on pid returned by process
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:04:12 -0800
> Anyone care to explain why this fails?
>
> (receive (in out pid)
>(process "cat")
> (clos
> Are these both "close-output-port"? (I guess this is a typo)
Oops, yes, sorry, that was a typo in my example. Though, hmm,
shouldn't Chicken throw an error in that case?
> closing both input and output ports will automatically do the
> process-wait for you.
Ahh, OK. That looks good.
What h
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Are these both "close-output-port"? (I guess this is a typo)
>
> Oops, yes, sorry, that was a typo in my example. Though, hmm,
> shouldn't Chicken throw an error in that case?
>
Yeah, it should.
>
> > c
13 matches
Mail list logo
