Hi!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Sun 24 Apr 2011 22:22, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Looks good to me. Could you factor it into an M4 macro, use
>> AC_CACHE_CHECK, and move that to acinclude.m4?
>
> I tried and failed, so I pushed it anyway. Would you like to do the
> refactoring as
On Sat 18 Jun 2011 23:42, Paul Eggert writes:
> Does it work to use the following test program instead?
>
> int
> find_stack_direction (char *addr)
> {
> char dummy;
> return (! addr ? find_stack_direction (&dummy)
> : addr < &dummy ? 1 : -1);
> }
>
> int
> main (void)
> {
> retur
Hi,
On Sat 18 Jun 2011 22:25, "Andrew W. Nosenko"
writes:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 13:21, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> wingo@badger:/tmp$ cat foo.c
>> int
>> find_stack_direction ()
>> {
>> static char *addr = 0;
>
> Try to rewrite this line as
> volatile static char *addr = 0;
> It sh
Applied and pushed. Thanks for the patch!
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #33165 (project guile):
Hi Ludo,
> [ludo@nixey:~/src/guile/bug33165]$ ../meta/guile -l t/a.scm t/d/b.scm
Note that ~/src/guile is in your GUILE_LOAD_PATH and
GUILE_LOAD_COMPILED_PATH in this case, because of (test-suite lib).
This is an error IMO but it is how it is,
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #33498 (project guile):
Thanks for the info. Can you get a backtrace with gc 6.8? See
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Reporting-Bugs.html#Reporting-Bugs
for instructions, but instead of "backtrace", enter "thread apply all
backtrace". Thanks!
__
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 13:21, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The following transcript indicates a problem with the stack growth
> direction check, present at functions.m4:328 in autoconf 2.68:
>
> wingo@badger:/tmp$ cat foo.c
> int
> find_stack_direction ()
> {
> static char *addr = 0;
Tr
Does it work to use the following test program instead?
int
find_stack_direction (char *addr)
{
char dummy;
return (! addr ? find_stack_direction (&dummy)
: addr < &dummy ? 1 : -1);
}
int
main (void)
{
return find_stack_direction (0) < 0;
}
This, essentially, is the fix I just pu
On 06/19/11 12:01, Andy Wingo wrote:
> No, this program also exhibits the same incorrect behavior, for purposes
> of stack growth checking.
Thanks, I guess we'll have to turn it up a notch. How about the
following test program?
int
find_stack_direction (int *addr, int depth)
{
int dir, dummy =
Hello Paul,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 07:35:37AM CEST:
> On 06/19/11 12:01, Andy Wingo wrote:
> > No, this program also exhibits the same incorrect behavior, for purposes
> > of stack growth checking.
>
> Thanks, I guess we'll have to turn it up a notch. How about the
> followi
On 06/19/11 23:35, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> If you don't use volatile, the compiler is pretty much free to give you
> whatever answer it likes today.
It's true that the test relies on undefined behavior, and so the
compiler is free to do whatever it wants, but I don't see how
adding "volatile" hel
11 matches
Mail list logo
