Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 10 Oct 2015 06:46:57 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 199055] lang/sbcl: upgrade to 1.2.10 and fix thread concurrency
Message-ID:  <bug-199055-13-sTo6RYsqgt@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-199055-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-199055-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199055

Sean Champ <spchamp@me.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |spchamp@me.com

--- Comment #3 from Sean Champ <spchamp@me.com> ---
Building from the SBCL upstream codebase, I was able to build SBCL 1.2.14 on
FreeBSD 10.1-STABLE, with both of the :SB-THREAD and :SB-FUTEX options enabled. 

It seemed that :SB-THREAD build would not complete without enabling the
:SB-FUTEX option, additionally. Without the :SB-FUTEX option enabled, the build
from 1.2.14 became "stuck" in one of the build-time tests. With the :SB-FUTEX
option enabled in addition to :SB-THREAD, the build completed successfully.

I've not applied the build to any extensive tests. With apology, it's taken a
little while for me to find the bug tracking database, simply to report the
matter here. 

Orthogonally albeit: I'd also enabled the :SB-WTIMER, :SB-THRUPTION, and
SB-SAFEPOINT options, in the build. I was hoping that perhaps those might be
sufficient for CL+J's Java JNI interface to "work out" in SBCL on FreeBSD.
There's something about the interrupts implementation that SBCL inherited from
CMUCL, it's denoted at the CL+J homepage. I've yet to be able to test that
specific hypothesis with the build, however. Could it be possible to provide
those additional options for the port config?

I had thought that the matter of the SB-FUTEX option could've represented a
request for a new feature to the port's configuration, but I'd noticed that the
port was denoted as unmaintained. Of course, SBCL runs with or without
multithreading support. 

I hope it may be as well to mention the :SB-FUTEX workaround here, as a comment
to this existing issue tracker item. I'd also mentioned the matter to a social
forum, on the Web. I was not then aware of the availability of the FreeBSD bug
tracker, here.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-199055-13-sTo6RYsqgt>