freenode/#sicl - IRC Chatlog
Search
13:51:11
ebrasca
beach: Interesting reading. But do you need to have ssd to store data without hierarchy having good performance?
14:18:56
beach
ebrasca: For CLOSOS, there is no file system because there are no files. So the only systems concerned with external memory are the paging system and the checkpointing system. So the primary memory can be seen as a cache for the secondary storage. The paging system is a pretty ordinary demand-paging system.
14:18:57
beach
The preferred checkpointing system (described in section 6.2) may require an SSD for the "segment headers" which take up a small fraction of the total secondary storage. All the rest should be possible on either HDD or SSD.
15:33:21
beach
Major cleanup progress today. I got rid of the obsolete system sicl-global-environment, and updated (nearly) all code that used it.
17:28:35
beach
I think of cl-xyz as the name used for a library that provides Common Lisp bindings for a library named xyz written in a language other than Common Lisp.
17:29:56
beach
Just as I think of trivial-xyz as a library for unifying implementation-specific modules that are nevertheless widely used.
17:33:16
beach
Anyway, I need to go. It is my night to cook for my (admittedly small) family. I'll be back tomorrow as usual.
20:44:47
no-defun-allowed
I agree with ebrasca, cl-decentralise2 isn't a library for binding to a foreign library. But I don't like the name.
20:53:12
no-defun-allowed
Not really, I'm not sure how beach makes up names, except that they end up with "cl" in the name, possibly by changing a sound like "cl" to "cl".
21:50:29
no-defun-allowed
Silly question, I read that Cleavir will prove dynamic-extent declarations before stack allocating. Would it be possible to have a (non-portable) declaration that runs escape analysis on any binding? Then, say, I could ensure that a user of a mutex box isn't doing something stupid; for example, (let (x) (with-unlocked-box (x* box) (setf x x*))) may or may not be a problem.
21:55:29
no-defun-allowed
The declaration would have to accept different policies for what's okay with escaped values, say, I might have a list which I don't destructively modify, so that could escape, provided it's never destructively modified. But this analysis wouldn't be particuarly useful without verifying that the value won't escape through calling another function.