Pike-devel May 2015

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

4 participants
4 discussions

Re: Setting socket options: so many, uhh, options!
by Chris Angelico 15 Sep '16

15 Sep '16

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Mirar @ Pike developers forum <10353(a)lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote: > Wait, I said REUSEPORT? What's the difference to REUSEADDR? Mysteries > of TCP sockets... Here's a decent explanation, I think: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14388706/socket-options-so-reuseaddr-and… ChrisA

3 6

*new*-style tail-recursion
by Arne Goedeke 07 May '15

07 May '15

I have been working on refactoring the API of mega_apply and friends. The purpose of that branch is to improve the performance of function calls. More specifically, in some cases (e.g. f_map) frame allocation, setup and deallocation could be avoided if the API permitted it. I will soon push a branch and ask for feedback on that. Now to the real questions: apply_low.h contains a FIXME notice talking about new-style tail recursion. Could anyone elaborate what that is, which code to look at and how that works? arne

2 1

C-function contract
by Martin Nilsson (Opera Mini - AFK!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 07 May '15

07 May '15

In some of the recent meetings we have discussed the ABI contract for pike functions. Since apply already cleans up the stack (the top is the return value, and the rest is discarded), it would make sense to change the contract so that C functions don't have to care what is on the stack beside the return value. However, the drawback is that you can no longer just call these functions (typically f_*) from other C-code if you intend to use anthing more than the top of the stack. E.g. f_a(); f_b(); f_aggregate(2); You would have to save the stack position and do a stack_pop_n_elems_keep_top() after each call. Do we still think this change is a good one?

2 1

Possible parenthesization problem?
by Chris Angelico 07 May '15

07 May '15

Poking around in signal_handler.c out of curiosity, I came across this: while(UNLIKELY(close(control_pipe[0])) < 0 && UNLIKELY(errno==EINTR)); while(UNLIKELY(close(control_pipe[1])) < 0 && UNLIKELY(errno==EINTR)); (lines 3580-3581) The UNLIKELY marker normally applies to an entire condition, not just to the integer that's about to be compared to zero. Should this become: while(UNLIKELY(close(control_pipe[0]) < 0) && UNLIKELY(errno==EINTR)); while(UNLIKELY(close(control_pipe[1]) < 0) && UNLIKELY(errno==EINTR)); or is there something I'm not understanding about the nature of UNLIKELY()? ChrisA

2 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel May 2015