Ken Raeburn writes:
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 01:08, Ken Raeburn wrote:
>> Andy's just changed a bunch of stuff affecting these files; I've
>> remerged my changes, but I'm not sure if they're needed any more.
>> I'll try to examine this further tomorrow.
>
> I had to run the test suite rather than ju
On Nov 16, 2009, at 01:08, Ken Raeburn wrote:
Andy's just changed a bunch of stuff affecting these files; I've
remerged my changes, but I'm not sure if they're needed any more.
I'll try to examine this further tomorrow.
I had to run the test suite rather than just finish the build to
repr
On Mon 16 Nov 2009 07:08, Ken Raeburn writes:
> On Nov 15, 2009, at 17:25, Neil Jerram wrote:
>> Ken Raeburn writes:
>>
>>> Here's my revised patch. I've simplified the check, and it still
>>> passes the tests (except the options tests that were just committed
>>> with a log message indicating
On Nov 15, 2009, at 17:25, Neil Jerram wrote:
Ken Raeburn writes:
Here's my revised patch. I've simplified the check, and it still
passes the tests (except the options tests that were just committed
with a log message indicating that they don't pass) and doesn't crash
under SCM_DEBUG.
Thank
Ken Raeburn writes:
> Here's my revised patch. I've simplified the check, and it still
> passes the tests (except the options tests that were just committed
> with a log message indicating that they don't pass) and doesn't crash
> under SCM_DEBUG.
Thanks. The revised patch looks correct to me,
Ken Raeburn writes:
> I may be overlooking something in my old email -- what were the non-
> comment updates you suggested?
Actually nothing - misremembering on my part. Sorry for the confusion.
Neil
On Nov 14, 2009, at 12:07, Ken Raeburn wrote:
On Nov 14, 2009, at 08:47, Neil Jerram wrote:
Thanks, Andy. I'm confident now that your patch is correct, Ken, so
please could you apply it? Also please let me know if you're happy
to
do the other changes (mostly comment updates) that I suggeste
On Nov 14, 2009, at 08:47, Neil Jerram wrote:
Thanks, Andy. I'm confident now that your patch is correct, Ken, so
please could you apply it? Also please let me know if you're happy to
do the other changes (mostly comment updates) that I suggested to go
with it, or if you'd prefer me to do those
Andy Wingo writes:
>> So there's at least this case where the cache entry has a different
>> form. Actually I think this is a general change that Andy made a while
>> back - i.e. to form the old (ENV FORMALS FORM1 ...) part into a
>> procedure and store that in the cache instead.
>>
>> Andy, can
Hi,
On Sat 31 Oct 2009 16:42, Neil Jerram writes:
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> Ken Raeburn writes:
>>
>>> At Andy's suggestion, re-posting the still-pending part that needs
>>> review. Without these changes, the code in the loops applies SCM_CAR
>>> to non-pair objects.
>>>
>>> GUILE_AUTO_COMPI
Neil Jerram writes:
> Ken Raeburn writes:
>
>> At Andy's suggestion, re-posting the still-pending part that needs
>> review. Without these changes, the code in the loops applies SCM_CAR
>> to non-pair objects.
>>
>> GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 \
>> ../meta/uninstal
Hello,
Ken Raeburn writes:
> GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 \
> ../meta/uninstalled-env \
> guile-tools compile -Wunbound-variable -o "ice-9/debugger.go"
> "../../
> guile/module/ice-9/debugger.scm"
> Non-pair accessed with SCM_C[AD]R: `# . #{in
Ken Raeburn writes:
> At Andy's suggestion, re-posting the still-pending part that needs
> review. Without these changes, the code in the loops applies SCM_CAR
> to non-pair objects.
>
> GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 \
> ../meta/uninstalled-env \
>
At Andy's suggestion, re-posting the still-pending part that needs
review. Without these changes, the code in the loops applies SCM_CAR
to non-pair objects.
GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0\
../meta/uninstalled-env \
guile-tools compile -Wunbo
On Mon 19 Oct 2009 15:52, Ken Raeburn writes:
> On Oct 18, 2009, at 18:44, Neil Jerram wrote:
>
>> Your change looks straightforward, but the "More arguments than
>> specifiers" comment makes it look as though it might have been
>> intentional to let the !scm_is_pair (z) case through.
>>
>> I don
On Oct 18, 2009, at 18:44, Neil Jerram wrote:
I've been trying to reproduce the guardian finalisation problem that
you
see with SCM_DEBUG==1 but, like Ludovic, I haven't had any luck. With
SCM_DEBUG=1 for the whole build (plus the SCM_GC_MARK_P change), I'm
afraid my machine grinds to a halt w
Hi Ken,
I've been trying to reproduce the guardian finalisation problem that you
see with SCM_DEBUG==1 but, like Ludovic, I haven't had any luck. With
SCM_DEBUG=1 for the whole build (plus the SCM_GC_MARK_P change), I'm
afraid my machine grinds to a halt when it gets to goops.c - i.e. it
never fi
On Sep 7, 2009, at 05:22, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Non-pair accessed with SCM_C[AD]R: `ERROR: In procedure symbol-
>string:
ERROR: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting symbol):
#
Does that mean it’s this whole string that’s accessed with SCM_C[AD]R?
I'm not sure... it should be printin
Hi Ken,
Ken Raeburn writes:
> BTW, the bdw-gc branch with my patch and SCM_DEBUG==1 still fails
> tests on my Mac.
>
> In guardians.c, line 169, SCM_CAR is applied to a non-pair:
>
> Running popen.test
> Running ports.test
>
> scm_error_pair_access
> Non-pair accessed with SCM_C[AD]R: `ERROR: In
On Sun 06 Sep 2009 02:37, Ken Raeburn writes:
> BTW, the bdw-gc branch with my patch and SCM_DEBUG==1 still fails tests
> on my Mac.
>
> In guardians.c, line 169, SCM_CAR is applied to a non-pair:
>
> Running popen.test
> Running ports.test
>
> scm_error_pair_access
> Non-pair accessed with SCM_C
BTW, the bdw-gc branch with my patch and SCM_DEBUG==1 still fails
tests on my Mac.
In guardians.c, line 169, SCM_CAR is applied to a non-pair:
Running popen.test
Running ports.test
scm_error_pair_access
Non-pair accessed with SCM_C[AD]R: `ERROR: In procedure symbol->string:
ERROR: Wrong type
Okay, I found some more time to look into it. I have a patch that now
passes "make && make install && make check" with SCM_DEBUG==1.
There was an additional issue in goops.c where SCM_C[AD]R get used
with objects that have just been verified to be structs, not pairs.
Since there don't see
On Sep 3, 2009, at 17:04, Ken Raeburn wrote:
[...] Scheme compilation bug is still there, though.
I'm still not sure where the bug is, but here's what I've traced
through so far;
The error is happening in eval.i.c, line number in the high 800s (I've
got a bunch of tracing lines added in m
On Sep 1, 2009, at 15:35, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
--- a/libguile/gc.h
+++ b/libguile/gc.h
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ SCM_INTERNAL void scm_i_ensure_marking(void);
SCM_API int scm_debug_cell_accesses_p;
SCM_API int scm_expensive_debug_cell_accesses_p;
SCM_API int scm_debug_cells_gc_interval ;
-void scm_i_
Hi!
Ken Raeburn writes:
> --- a/libguile/gc.h
> +++ b/libguile/gc.h
> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ SCM_INTERNAL void scm_i_ensure_marking(void);
> SCM_API int scm_debug_cell_accesses_p;
> SCM_API int scm_expensive_debug_cell_accesses_p;
> SCM_API int scm_debug_cells_gc_interval ;
> -void scm_i_expensi
25 matches
Mail list logo
