[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH(5)] Remove srfi-18 and srfi-69

From: Christian Kellermann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH(5)] Remove srfi-18 and srfi-69
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:54:26 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Felix Winkelmann <address@hidden> writes:
> It includes literal C code directly in the code generated by the compiler.
> There are a couple of helper functions and macros in there. You can ignore it,
> just leave the foreign-declaration as it is. 

I just wondered whether pulling it out of the declare makes any
difference. A diff between the generated C files showed no
difference. Mind you I have no intention to change that if it has some
subtle implications, I just want to understand it. It looked like an
oversight to me.

> "disable-interrupts" is needed to avoid context-switches inside the
> scheduler code. "unsafe" squeezes out a bit more speed. The "not
> inline" declaration for ##sys#interrupt-hook is needed to avoid that
> the compiler inlines calls to this procedure (this may not be
> necessary here, but since it is a hook function, we don't want the
> compiler to make now (or in future) any assumptions about optimizing
> accesses to it. Consider this the equivalent of a "volatile" declaration
> in C.)

Thank you for the explanation!

Kind regards,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]