> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org>, gdb-patc...@sourceware.org, > guile-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:20:39 +0100 > > Doug Evans <xdj...@gmail.com> skribis: > > I don’t remember, Eli: do you have patches pending review for these > issues and other MinGW issues in Guile?
I don't know, you tell me. I sent several changesets in June, in these messages: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00031.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00032.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00033.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00036.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00037.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00039.html In this message: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00057.html you have requested a copyright assignment for applying my patches; that paperwork was done long ago, so the changes can be admitted. I don't know if they were, though. One thing I do know is that the request to gnulib maintainers to include hstrerror, which I posted, at your request, here http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2013-06/msg00042.html was left without any followups. Also, since the only way I could get a functional MinGW Guile was to configure it without threads, I would suggest that this be the default for MinGW, but that isn't a big deal. > The non-pthread code is used when Guile is built without pthread > support. In that case, the async is queued directly from the signal > handler. So why cannot this code be used by GDB? > (I think we should aim to get rid of the signal-delivery thread > eventually, and I remember Mark mentioned it before too.) Right, which raises again the question why use in GDB something that is slated for deletion. Btw, where does the value of SCM_USE_PTHREAD_THREADS come from? Is it something defined by the installed Guile headers?
