(Why am I not getting mails to the list? Is mailman being "smart", or
the mailing lists slow? Anyway, replying to all..)
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 07:49 +0100, Neil Jerram wrote:
> Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 64-bit machines, a cell is 16 bytes, and that means that a
> > word wit
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is what is going on: the CELL_P predicate is used during the
> conservative scanning of the GC to decide whether a random word can
> possibly be a non-immediate SCM value. Non-immediate values are the
> ones that point into the heap. The type tag
Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 00:29 +0300, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> > 137c137
> > < #define CELL_P(x) (SCM_ITAG3 (x) == scm_tc3_cons)
> > ---
> > > #define CELL_P(x) ((SCM_UNPACK(x) & (sizeof(scm_t_cell)-1)) ==
> > > scm_tc3_cons)
>
> I don't really und
Hi,
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 00:29 +0300, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> 137c137
> < #define CELL_P(x) (SCM_ITAG3 (x) == scm_tc3_cons)
> ---
> > #define CELL_P(x) ((SCM_UNPACK(x) & (sizeof(scm_t_cell)-1)) ==
> > scm_tc3_cons)
I don't really understand how the region can give you unaligned
pointers, but
Miroslav Lichvar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 04:05:34PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > The scm_mark_locations function in gc-mark.c calls scm_gc_mark on
> > everything located in one of the allocated segments. Shouldn't there
> > be a check if the address is at least
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 04:05:34PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> The scm_mark_locations function in gc-mark.c calls scm_gc_mark on
> everything located in one of the allocated segments. Shouldn't there
> be a check if the address is at least scm_t_cell aligned?
Looks like the CELL_P macro is t
Hi,
attached is a patch that seems to fix the problem with gcc4 and 64bit
architectures.
The scm_mark_locations function in gc-mark.c calls scm_gc_mark on
everything located in one of the allocated segments. Shouldn't there
be a check if the address is at least scm_t_cell aligned?
Is it correct
--On Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:37 PM +0100 Neil Jerram
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
amd64-linux26:/afs/ir/src/pubsw/languages/guile-1.6.7>
/usr/pubsw/bin/gcc -v Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../../gcc-4
Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> amd64-linux26:/afs/ir/src/pubsw/languages/guile-1.6.7> /usr/pubsw/bin/gcc -v
> Using built-in specs.
> Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
> Configured with: ../../gcc-4.0.2/configure --datadir=/lib
> --libexecdir=/lib --sharedstatedir=/lib --prefix=/
--On Monday, April 10, 2006 11:55 PM +0100 Neil Jerram
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Hi,
Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
guile 1.8 fails to compile for me on my x86_64 box. I saw some
previous thread about guile 1.7.xx having thi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi,
>
> Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> guile 1.8 fails to compile for me on my x86_64 box. I saw some
>> previous thread about guile 1.7.xx having this issue, and I was
>> wondering if there's been a fix since the 1.8 release.
>
Hi,
Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> guile 1.8 fails to compile for me on my x86_64 box. I saw some
> previous thread about guile 1.7.xx having this issue, and I was
> wondering if there's been a fix since the 1.8 release.
It's a known problem with 1.8.0 that is being worked on
guile 1.8 fails to compile for me on my x86_64 box. I saw some previous
thread about guile 1.7.xx having this issue, and I was wondering if there's
been a fix since the 1.8 release.
guile reports:
Making all in libguile
make[2]: Entering directory
`/afs/ir.stanford.edu/src/pubsw/languages/gu
13 matches
Mail list logo
