So this seems not so nice. Currently in swank.lisp we have this function:
(defun spawn-threads-for-connection (connection) (let* ((socket-io (connection.socket-io connection)) (control-thread (spawn (lambda () (setq *debugger-hook* nil) (dispatch-loop socket-io connection)) :name "control-thread"))) (setf (connection.control-thread connection) control-thread) (let ((reader-thread (spawn (lambda () (setq *debugger-hook* nil) (read-loop control-thread socket-io connection)) :name "reader-thread")) (repl-thread (spawn (lambda () (repl-loop connection)) :name "repl-thread"))) (setf (connection.reader-thread connection) reader-thread) (setf (connection.repl-thread connection) repl-thread) connection)))
Consequently after .swank.lisp is loaded (in which I set *debug-hook* to #'swank-debugger-hook) this function runs and clobbers the global value. Threads spawned by AllegroServe seem to inherit their value from the global value so they don't get swank-debugger-hook unless I set it in *inferior-lisp*. Is there some reason this isn't a good patch:
Index: swank.lisp =================================================================== RCS file: /project/slime/cvsroot/slime/swank.lisp,v retrieving revision 1.248 diff -u -r1.248 swank.lisp --- swank.lisp 6 Oct 2004 12:39:35 -0000 1.248 +++ swank.lisp 7 Oct 2004 17:55:14 -0000 @@ -507,14 +507,14 @@ (defun spawn-threads-for-connection (connection) (let* ((socket-io (connection.socket-io connection)) (control-thread (spawn (lambda () - (setq *debugger-hook* nil) - (dispatch-loop socket-io connection)) + (let ((*debugger-hook* nil)) + (dispatch-loop socket-io connection))) :name "control-thread"))) (setf (connection.control-thread connection) control-thread) (let ((reader-thread (spawn (lambda () - (setq *debugger-hook* nil) - (read-loop control-thread socket-io - connection)) + (let ((*debugger-hook* nil)) + (read-loop control-thread socket-io + connection))) :name "reader-thread")) (repl-thread (spawn (lambda () (repl-loop connection)) :name "repl-thread")))
-Peter
Peter Seibel peter@javamonkey.com writes:
Is there some reason this isn't a good patch:
No. The patch looks good.
Helmut.
Helmut Eller e9626484@stud3.tuwien.ac.at writes:
Peter Seibel peter@javamonkey.com writes:
Is there some reason this isn't a good patch:
No. The patch looks good.
Okay. I committed it.
-Peter