GNU bug report logs - #22767
Thread-sleep! doesn't sleep

Previous Next

Package: guile;

Reported by: Takashi Kato <ktakashi19 <at> gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:01:01 UTC

Severity: normal

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 22767 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#22767; Package guile. (Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:01:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Takashi Kato <ktakashi19 <at> gmail.com>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-guile <at> gnu.org. (Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:01:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Takashi Kato <ktakashi19 <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-guile <at> gnu.org
Subject: Thread-sleep! doesn't sleep
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:37:56 +0100
Hi there,

I think I've found a bug of thread-sleep! defined in SRFI-18 library.
The file module/srfi/srfi-18.scm line 233 subtract current time from
given timeout argument but this results negative number most of the
case. I think this line should simply return timeout as it is.

Cheers,

-- 
_/_/
Takashi Kato
E-mail: ktakashi19 <at> gmail.com




Information forwarded to bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#22767; Package guile. (Sun, 07 Aug 2016 21:33:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #8 received at 22767 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andy Wingo <wingo <at> pobox.com>
To: Takashi Kato <ktakashi19 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 22767 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22767: Thread-sleep! doesn't sleep
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2016 23:32:26 +0200
Hi Takashi,

Thank you for the report.

On Mon 22 Feb 2016 12:37, Takashi Kato <ktakashi19 <at> gmail.com> writes:

> I think I've found a bug of thread-sleep! defined in SRFI-18 library.
> The file module/srfi/srfi-18.scm line 233 subtract current time from
> given timeout argument but this results negative number most of the
> case. I think this line should simply return timeout as it is.

You are right.  Guile's documentation indicates that the timeout is an
absolute time as a SRFI-18 time object, but the SRFI itself says that
timeouts are either:

   * a time object represents an absolute point in time

   * an exact or inexact real number represents a relative time in
     seconds from the moment the primitive was called

So I guess when passed a number, that's not to be interpreted as an
absolute time from the epoch, but rather a relative timeout.  We need to
update our documentation and tests, it seems, and issue a prominent NEWS
entry...

Andy




This bug report was last modified 8 years and 311 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.