> But I don't quite follow why a remember would be wanted in
> SCM_VALIDATE_CELL. I'd have thought it was in fact a good thing if
> the "cell" value went dead if not being checked.
Hunh!? This whole thread is about building guile in gcc 4.n on a
64-bit machine. It doesn't build, or run unless
Hi Bill,
I'd like to see the changes you made (keeping in mind your disclaimer
about "rightness").
Thanks,
Jay
On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Bill Schottstaedt wrote:
I just checked Fedora Core 5 with gcc 4.1, and it's broken there in
the
same way as in FC4/gcc 4.0.
(On the Mac socklen_t
I just checked Fedora Core 5 with gcc 4.1, and it's broken there in the
same way as in FC4/gcc 4.0.
(On the Mac socklen_t bug, I can pass along the changes I made, if you
want them -- as I said before, they're not "the right thing").
___
Guile-devel
Hi Neil,
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 21:56 +0100, Neil Jerram wrote:
> The gcc on this machine is:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/guile-core-1.8-20060328$ gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13)
I got different results when using gcc 3.3. Can't remember exactly how
different tho :-/
The gcc I no
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe the only important 1.8 bug still outstanding is the one
> which causes Scheme data corruption on 64-bit platforms - and which is
> usually enough to cause the build to fail in
> snarf-check-and-output-texi.
Someone has been kind enough to loan m
I believe the only important 1.8 bug still outstanding is the one
which causes Scheme data corruption on 64-bit platforms - and which is
usually enough to cause the build to fail in
snarf-check-and-output-texi.
Is there anything else of equal impact that I've forgotten?
I'm not sure how to procee
