[squeak-dev] Re: Process bug introduced in 3.10
bryce at kampjes.demon.co.uk
bryce at kampjes.demon.co.uk
Mon Jun 9 21:20:01 UTC 2008
Andreas Raab writes:
> Of course, if I'd ever learn how to spell "timeout" correctly, I might
> find out that that's not the problem. Back to the drawing board... (but
> I'm still not convinced that the problem isn't somewhere in the nested
> unwind-protect stuff).
It definately looks like it's caused by the changes to Delay>>wait.
wait
"Schedule this Delay, then wait on its semaphore. The current
process will be suspended for the amount of time specified
when this Delay was created."
self schedule.
[delaySemaphore wait] ifCurtailed:[self unschedule].
If I comment out the "self unschedule" it works reliably. If I replace
the "self unschedule" with "Processor yield" the bug occurs but takes
a few more iterations (about 10 instead of 1 or two).
I'm going to leave this bug and go back to finishing up the next
Exupery release. I can make my test work by increasing the delay so
that the profilers never kill themselves.
Bryce
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|