Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

Hi, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it's writing a byte as an inter-thread signaling mechanism. > It's pretty unlikely that a single byte write will be interrupted, but > if it is then a retry will be needed, so I think the use of > SCM_SYSCALL is correct in principle here. Ok.

Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > I guess the point of this `_FORTIFY_SOURCE' thing is to help catch > errors related to interactions with the kernel (among others). The idea > is that when performing a system call, one _should_ be concerned about > its result. > > In the case of asyn

Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

Hi, Stanislav Ievlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:13:38PM +0100, Neil Jerram wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Court?s) writes: >> >> > As for this: >> > >> > async.c: In function 'scm_i_queue_async_cell': >> > async.c:250: warning: ignoring return value of 'wr

Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:13:38PM +0100, Neil Jerram wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Court?s) writes: > > > As for this: > > > > async.c: In function 'scm_i_queue_async_cell': > > async.c:250: warning: ignoring return value of 'write', declared with > > attribute warn_unused_result > > >

Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > As for this: > > async.c: In function 'scm_i_queue_async_cell': > async.c:250: warning: ignoring return value of 'write', declared with > attribute warn_unused_result > > I don't really understand what this code does, but I have the feeling > that

Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

Hi, Stanislav Ievlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As I understand, this is one of security features from RedHat gcc branch. > http://www.redhat.com/magazine/006apr05/features/security/ I see. I found a more technical post on this matter: http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/25/46 This looks like a

Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:58:58PM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote: > Hi, > > Stanislav Ievlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:23:31AM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Stanislav Ievlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > : In expression (vector-leng

Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

Hi, Stanislav Ievlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:23:31AM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Stanislav Ievlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > : In expression (vector-length syntmp-x-1008): >> > : Stack overflow >> >> Did you compile with `-O0'? If so, m

Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

Stanislav Ievlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > You have problems with optimization disabled? We don't, but gcc 4 does :). (Bloated stack usage in the code gcc generates for the guile eval func.) ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http:

Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:23:31AM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote: > Hi, > > Stanislav Ievlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > : In expression (vector-length syntmp-x-1008): > > : Stack overflow > > Did you compile with `-O0'? If so, make sure you compile at least with > `-O1'. You have problems

Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

Hi, Stanislav Ievlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : In expression (vector-length syntmp-x-1008): > : Stack overflow Did you compile with `-O0'? If so, make sure you compile at least with `-O1'. Hope this helps, Ludovic. ___ Guile-devel mailing lis

guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64

-- $ guile Backtrace: In unknown file: ?: 130* [syntmp-gen-syntax-1074 #(syntax-object # #) #(syntax-object # #) ... ] ?: 131 (if (syntmp-id?-115 syntmp-e-1110) (let* (#) (let* # #)) ...) ... ?: 132 [call-with-values # #] ?: 133 (@call-with-values (producer consumer)) ?: 134*