Re: [Sbcl-devel] [Sbcl-commits] master: non-consing NANOSLEEP

[Nathan F. <fr...@gm...>]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Nikodemus Siivola
<de...@us...> wrote:
>    non-consing NANOSLEEP
>
>      ...and hence SLEEP as well.
>
> @@ -976,10 +976,9 @@ corresponds to NAME, or NIL if there is none."
>                            (rem-nsec (slot rem 'tv-nsec)))
>                        (when (or (> secs rem-sec)
>                                  (and (= secs rem-sec) (>= nsecs rem-nsec)))
> -                         (setf secs rem-sec
> -                               nsecs rem-nsec)
>                          t)))
> -          do (rotatef req rem))))
> +          do (setf (slot req 'tv-sec) (slot rem 'tv-sec)
> +                   (slot req 'tv-nsec) (slot rem 'tv-nsec)))))

This doesn't have the same semantics as the ROTATEF did, no?  Or is
the change compensated by the removal of SETF'ing SECS and NSECS?

-Nathan