[slime-devel] Re: Slime and :sb-futex on recent CVS SBCLs

[Peter Seibel]

Christophe Rhodes <csr21 at cam.ac.uk> writes:

> Luke Gorrie <luke at synap.se> writes:
>
>> Christophe Rhodes <csr21 at cam.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>>> If it's possible given the time constraints and cvs tagging activity,
>>> I'd be happy if the preferred-communication-style checked only
>>> :sb-thread, and if the slime release notes for 1.2 required an sbcl of
>>> 0.8.21 or later.
>>
>> Does :sb-thread reasonably imply a working threads implementation? My
>> only concern is that if SBCL on some platforms would have :sb-thread
>> by default but not a reliable implementation, i.e. if SLIME suddenly
>> starts using threads by default on platforms where it shouldn't.
>
> I think (Dan reads this list, so he'll correct me if I'm wrong) that
> from 0.8.21 :sb-thread implies the previous combination of :sb-thread
> and :sb-futex before.  That said, there is a possible snafu where an
> sbcl with :sb-thread will nevertheless refuse to start new threads if
> the underlying kernel is insufficiently futexed.

Doesn't that include, for example 2.4 kernels? Would this change imply
that anyone grabbing a 0.8.21 SBCL and SLIME 1.2 on a 2.4 kernel would
lose by default since  SBCL would refuse to start new threads?

-Peter

-- 
Peter Seibel                                     peter at gigamonkeys.com

         Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp