Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-09-17 Thread Neil Jerram
Andreas Rottmann writes: >> I checked the upstream tarballs and both 7.0 and 7.1 come with >> ‘bdw-gc.pc.in’. Thus I suspect this is a packaging issue. Can you >> report it on the Debian side? >> > I've taken the liberty to do so: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=546833 > >

Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-09-15 Thread Andreas Rottmann
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hi Neil, > > Neil Jerram writes: > >> I just installed libgc1c2 and libgc-dev (both 1:7.1-3) on my Debian >> stable/testing machine. Apparently no problem there. >> >> But there's still no pkgconfig for libgc, and so >> >> PKG_CHECK_MODULES([BDW_GC], [bd

Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-09-10 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Neil, Neil Jerram writes: > I just installed libgc1c2 and libgc-dev (both 1:7.1-3) on my Debian > stable/testing machine. Apparently no problem there. > > But there's still no pkgconfig for libgc, and so > > PKG_CHECK_MODULES([BDW_GC], [bdw-gc]) > > fails: I checked the upstream tarballs a

Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-09-10 Thread Neil Jerram
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >>> So now is a good time to test it and report back! It requires libgc 7.1 >>> or later, which isn't packaged in Debian, although it was released in >>> May 2008. >>> >> It's in experimental since recently; I assume its maintainer will upload >> to unstable

Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-09-05 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Andreas, On Tue 18 Aug 2009 14:19, Andreas Rottmann writes: > Will going from a precise GC to BDW-GC not have drawbacks? IIRC, the PLT > people went in the opposite direction. A quick google turned up this: > > http://www.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/plt-scheme/2006-June/013840.html > > I wonder if

Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-09-05 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Andreas Rottmann writes: > My main concern is/was that by moving to a conservatice GC, and > _consequently changing the API of libguile to assume a conservative GC_ > (as outlined in [2]), you get third code relying on that as well. This > would make it effectively impossible to ever switch

Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-09-04 Thread dsmich
Andreas Rottmann wrote: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > Also, there are definite benefits to using a conservative GC for > > libguile, given how tightly it can be integrated with C (e.g., [2]). > > > My main concern is/was that by moving to a conservatice GC, and > _consequentl

Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-09-04 Thread Andreas Rottmann
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Andreas Rottmann writes: > >> Will going from a precise GC to BDW-GC not have drawbacks? IIRC, the PLT >> people went in the opposite direction. A quick google turned up this: >> >> http://www.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/plt-scheme/2006-June/013840.html >> >> I

Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-08-18 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Andreas Rottmann writes: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] >> So now is a good time to test it and report back! It requires libgc 7.1 >> or later, which isn't packaged in Debian, although it was released in >> May 2008. >> > It's in experimental since recently; I assume its m

Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-08-18 Thread Andreas Rottmann
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hello! > > I merged `master' in the `boehm-demers-weiser-gc' branch yesterday, > which hadn't been done since before 1.9.0 (no, you won't see the 4 MiB+ > commit message on `guile-commits'...). > > So now is a good time to test it and report back! It requi