On 6/23/05, Gerd Flaig gefla@pond.sub.org wrote:
Knut Olav Bøhmer bohmer@gmail.com writes:
killing threads in a infinite loop is like killing any other thread. slime-list-threads (C-c C-x t) then arrow up and down to your (un)favorite thread of choice, then press "k".
now I'm confused. I typed the following in a buffer named foo.lisp:
(defun endless () (endless))
(endless)
After the defun, I did C-c C-c and after the (endless) C-x C-e. CPU load goes to 100% as expected, but C-c C-x t only shows
1: Initial Run
and no other threads. Superior lisp is Cmucl in my case. What implementation are you using?
Infinite loop, does not automatically imply tight loop. I did not try with a tight loop. One minute and I'll see........
(do ((foo nil)) (foo nil) (setf foo nil))
No problem, but I don't know if the rutine is representative. At work I'm running lispworks. I eaven tryed forking off 4 of them. And still ok.
On Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:02:06PM +0200, Knut Olav B?hmer wrote:
[ threads named 'worker']
So If the thread got the name "worker + buffer name" then I would have slightly more control.
"worker + buffer name 2" might be good if you want to distinguish between threads started from the same buffer.
There is already a incremental number involved (thread-number).