Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: abort command(a) doesn't work?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:32 pm 
Dear all,

I wonder why I cannot get a command to abort after
hitting ^C.
To reproduce this, try some big computation, that will
give you a 200Mb standard basis of an ideal, and then
do dump(":w .....)
and hit ^C.
(or hit ^C in the middle of such a big computation)

Is it because it still wants to finish the command?

I can imagine that commands that modify data in the
memory are hard to abort, but commands like dump, or any
commands that create new objects without destroying old
ones ought to be very cheap (and quick) to abort, IMHO.

tnx,
Dmitrii

PS. the platforms I get this behavour on are Linux and MacosX.


email: d.v.pasechnik@uvt.nl
Posted in old Singular Forum on: 2004-12-01 21:48:13+01


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:09 pm 
> Dear all,
>
> I wonder why I cannot get a command to abort after
> hitting ^C.

...
Usually, the program is within a lot of nested subroutines.
It is always quite difficult to return from these (without
additional test in each level). The compromiss is:
'a'-abort the current procedure (i.e. return to the top level
after finishing the current builtin-command
'q'- quit Singular immediatly
'c'- ignore the ^c
and only on some architecture and only as a last resort:
'r'- call the interpreter again: you should now save all
variables and quit Singular as soon as possible

email: hannes@mathematik.uni-kl.de
Posted in old Singular Forum on: 2004-12-06 20:07:35+01


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:09 pm 
> > I wonder why I cannot get a command to abort after
> > hitting ^C.
>
> ...
> Usually, the program is within a lot of nested subroutines.
> It is always quite difficult to return from these (without
> additional test in each level).
why not setjump/longjump - then you can get
back instantly.

> The compromiss is:
> 'a'-abort the current procedure (i.e. return to the top level
> after finishing the current builtin-command

that's exactly what I complain about - that hitting
'a' at this point often does not lead to an interrupt at all;
say, a standard basis computation happily goes on,
as I see from the option(prot) output.

Dmitrii

email: d.v.pasechnik@uvt.nl
Posted in old Singular Forum on: 2004-12-07 11:53:02+01


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

It is currently Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:17 am
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group