[slime-devel] Re: Slime/SBCL/FreeBSD oddities

[Raymond Wiker]

Luke Gorrie writes:
 > Raymond Wiker <Raymond.Wiker at fast.no> writes:
 > 
 > >  > What happens if you #+nil out this form in swank-sbcl.lisp?
 > >  > 
 > >  >     (setf (sb-bsd-sockets:non-blocking-mode socket) t)
 > > 
 > >         Works, thanks!
 > > 
 > >         Is this the right solution, though? I'm thinking that it might
 > > be better to have a safe-read-form (or something) that recognises
 > > EAGAIN... 
 > 
 > We do it like this in the CMUCL backend. It means that a
 > single-threaded Lisp will be blocked while it's in a dialogue with
 > Emacs. I think it's the Right Way.
 > 
 > It seems like the main alternative is to implicitly call the
 > SERVE-EVENT loop on EWOULDBLOCK. As an Erlang programmer this strikes
 > me as a Really Bad Idea, but it might be practical for others :-)

        I've just gone through src/code/fd-streams.lisp and
contrib/sb-simple-streams.internal.lisp and copied all code that
references sb-unix:ewouldblock into ~/.sbclrc, replacing
sb{!,-}-unix:ewouldblock with 35. This does not seem to work, either,
though it is possible that fixing unix.lisp and rebuilding would work.
I can certainly live with the fix you suggested (this is not connected
with the fact that I've done some Erlang programming in the past :-)

        Thanks for all the help, so far. I'll report on the result of
a full SBCL rebuild later.