[slime-devel] Re: feture suggjestion

[Knut Olav Bøhmer]

On 6/23/05, Gerd Flaig <gefla at pond.sub.org> wrote:
> Knut Olav Bøhmer <bohmer at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > killing threads in a infinite loop is like killing any other thread.
> > slime-list-threads (C-c C-x t)
> > then arrow up and down to your (un)favorite thread of choice, then press "k".
> 
> now I'm confused. I typed the following in a buffer named foo.lisp:
> 
>    (defun endless () (endless))
> 
>    (endless)
> 
> After the defun, I did C-c C-c and after the (endless) C-x C-e. CPU
> load goes to 100% as expected, but C-c C-x t only shows
> 
>   1: Initial                   Run
> 
> and no other threads. Superior lisp is Cmucl in my case. What
> implementation are you using?

Infinite loop, does not automatically imply tight loop. I did not try
with a tight loop. One minute and I'll see........

(do ((foo nil))
    (foo nil)
 (setf foo nil))

No problem, but I don't know if the rutine is representative. At work
I'm running lispworks.
I eaven tryed forking off 4 of them. And still ok.
 
> >> On Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:02:06PM +0200, Knut Olav B?hmer wrote:
> >> > [ threads named 'worker']
> >> >
> >> > So If the thread got the name "worker + buffer name" then I would have
> >> > slightly more control.
> 
> "worker + buffer name 2" might be good if you want to distinguish
> between threads started from the same buffer.

There is already a incremental number involved (thread-number).


-- 
Knut Olav Bøhmer
tlf: +47 47400777