GNU logs - #22767, boring messages

Message sent to bug-guile@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#22767: Thread-sleep! doesn't sleep
Resent-From: Takashi Kato <ktakashi19@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:01:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.22767.B.145615684222410 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 22767 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:37:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CACcjVL3kCz3KAadnR05q6iYK4YczCbbcqmQL5C5BmFigs4mwwg@HIDDEN>
From: Takashi Kato <ktakashi19@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

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@HIDDEN

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Takashi Kato <ktakashi19@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#22767: Acknowledgement (Thread-sleep! doesn't sleep)
Message-ID: <handler.22767.B.145615684222410.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <CACcjVL3kCz3KAadnR05q6iYK4YczCbbcqmQL5C5BmFigs4mwwg@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 22767
X-Gnu-PR-Package: guile
Reply-To: 22767 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:01:02 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-guile@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 22767 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
22767: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D22767
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to bug-guile@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#22767: Thread-sleep! doesn't sleep
Resent-From: Andy Wingo <wingo@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2016 21:33:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.22767.B22767.14706055558986 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Takashi Kato <ktakashi19@HIDDEN>
Cc: 22767 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc
 :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version
 :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=nHs5/AC3ZXlrVsAxxkSR7erTzqZvm4FY
 OZr+0YRRf1k31vF7i5gdqYisbcxmORxBig2ok7wbNrgeksOX2DKnl6DEZ1SnIN9l
 U3JfKPiHXVUzMQniY8vnAzBIlS6iwWIOX/aQgsYdB73r/LieU965lxuLdEsANV8N
 KrldStOIeOE=
From: Andy Wingo <wingo@HIDDEN>
References: <CACcjVL3kCz3KAadnR05q6iYK4YczCbbcqmQL5C5BmFigs4mwwg@HIDDEN>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2016 23:32:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CACcjVL3kCz3KAadnR05q6iYK4YczCbbcqmQL5C5BmFigs4mwwg@HIDDEN>
 (Takashi Kato's message of "Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:37:56 +0100")
Message-ID: <87twewnu39.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi Takashi,

Thank you for the report.

On Mon 22 Feb 2016 12:37, Takashi Kato <ktakashi19@HIDDEN> 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

Last modified: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:00:02 UTC

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