<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Semantics for Exceptions and Interrupts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.weaselhat.com/2007/01/08/exceptions-and-interrupts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.weaselhat.com/2007/01/08/exceptions-and-interrupts/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:23:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Greenberg</title>
		<link>http://www.weaselhat.com/2007/01/08/exceptions-and-interrupts/comment-page-1/#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Greenberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.weaselhat.com/2007/01/08/exceptions-and-interrupts/#comment-28</guid>
		<description>Interesting!  I may not understand what you wrote correctly, but it seems like it&#039;s simply a bug/nonconformance in GHC&#039;s output -- the exception queue isn&#039;t being checked when the block is left.  It seems feasible to check for exceptions after blocking, e.g. POSIX signals are checked at every context switch.  So: why is this still a problem?  Is GHC compiling down to primitives that don&#039;t have guarantees for inter-thread communication, or is there some other barrier?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting!  I may not understand what you wrote correctly, but it seems like it&#8217;s simply a bug/nonconformance in GHC&#8217;s output &#8212; the exception queue isn&#8217;t being checked when the block is left.  It seems feasible to check for exceptions after blocking, e.g. POSIX signals are checked at every context switch.  So: why is this still a problem?  Is GHC compiling down to primitives that don&#8217;t have guarantees for inter-thread communication, or is there some other barrier?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChrisK</title>
		<link>http://www.weaselhat.com/2007/01/08/exceptions-and-interrupts/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>ChrisK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:30:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.weaselhat.com/2007/01/08/exceptions-and-interrupts/#comment-27</guid>
		<description>Since you mention a difference between the theory and implementation of throw and block, I would like to point out another important difference.  The &quot;unblock&quot; command does not reliably allow exceptions to be delivered.  My page on the gory details is up on the wiki:

http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/Concurrency/Flaws</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since you mention a difference between the theory and implementation of throw and block, I would like to point out another important difference.  The &#8220;unblock&#8221; command does not reliably allow exceptions to be delivered.  My page on the gory details is up on the wiki:</p>
<p><a href="http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/Concurrency/Flaws" rel="nofollow">http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/Concurrency/Flaws</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

