Re: [PATCH] Fix search_path to fill stat_buf when given an absolute pathname

2012-02-01 Thread rixed
> David Pirotte has been experiencing a problem where (reload-module ...) > was failing to trigger a recompilation even after the source file has > been modified. Don't know if this is related or not, but it occured to me or my coworkers several times that a given scm file was not recompiled to a

Re: add-relative-load-path ? - scm_add_load_path too?

2012-02-01 Thread Ian Hulin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Mark, On 31/01/12 16:10, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Replying to myself... > >> Probably the easiest option here is to simply prepend the >> desired directories onto the GUILE_LOAD_PATH environment variable >> before calling scm_boot_guile. > > On seco

Re: [PATCH] Fix search_path to fill stat_buf when given an absolute pathname

2012-02-01 Thread Andy Wingo
On Wed 01 Feb 2012 22:47, Mark H Weaver writes: > The problem is that there's a case when 'search_path' leaves the > 'stat_buf' uninitialized. If the provided 'filename' is an absolute > pathname, then it simply returns this pathname unchanged without > touching the 'stat_buf'. This is bad, bec

[PATCH] Fix search_path to fill stat_buf when given an absolute pathname

2012-02-01 Thread Mark H Weaver
Hello all, David Pirotte has been experiencing a problem where (reload-module ...) was failing to trigger a recompilation even after the source file has been modified. We did some debugging, and discovered that when 'compiled_is_fresh' is called during the failed reload, the 'stat_source' structu

Re: Should we add scm_to_pointer, or just use SCM_POINTER_VALUE?

2012-02-01 Thread Andy Wingo
On Wed 01 Feb 2012 07:20, Mark H Weaver writes: > Should we add 'scm_to_pointer'? For most other accessors, the trend > seems to be to discourage use of C macros and move people over to C > functions instead. With that in mind, it seems inconsistent to have > people using SCM_POINTER_VALUE for

Re: Build Error in master

2012-02-01 Thread Andy Wingo
On Wed 01 Feb 2012 03:12, Noah Lavine writes: > In the failing call, > the SCM 'symbols' is 0x10101cff0, but the failing set is at 0x304, > which has not been allocated. 0x304 is one of the iflags, SCM_EOL I think. So, I know it might not have anything to do with it, but can you verify that y