On Wed 11 May 2016 12:42, Chris Vine writes:
> So you are saying that some parts of guile rely on the ordering
> guarantees of the x86 memory model (or something like it) with respect
> to atomic operations on some internal localised shared state?
Let's say you cons a fresh pair and pass it to a
Hi,
I just found out that there are currently three people who try to get
lilypond to work with guile 2.0.12, but they hit a roadblock on the
guile-side:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2016-04/msg00063.html
Harm wrote:
> > > > [build (dev/my-guilev2)]$ history 20
> > > >53
Hello!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> This is in a UTF-8 locale. OK. So we have 10M "a" characters. I now
> want to test these things:
>
> 1. peek-char, 1e7 times.
> 2. read-char, 1e7 times.
> 3. lookahead-u8, 1e7 times. (Call it peek-byte.)
> 4. get-u8, 1e7 times. (Call it read-byte.)
>
>
Andy Wingo writes:
> Greets,
>
> On Sun 17 Apr 2016 10:49, Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> | baseline | foo| port-line | peek-char
>> --+--++---+--
>> guile 2.0 | 0.269s | 0.845s | 1.067s| 1.280s
>> guile
On Tue, 10 May 2016 16:30:30 +0200
Andy Wingo wrote:
> I think we have no plans for giving up pthreads. The problem is that
> like you say, if there is no shared state, and your architecture has a
> reasonable memory model (Intel's memory model is really great to
> program), then you're fine. Bu
