Julian Graham writes:
> Argh, yes, that was it. Thanks! I'll clean up my environment.
Phew. Otherwise I was out of ideas...
Neil
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Neil Jerram wrote:
> Not that I'm aware of! I just tried the transcript again, with current
> master; no change from what I posted before, except that the version is
> now 1.9.3, and the stack count incorrect warning has gone.
>
> One detail that I didn't say befo
Julian Graham writes:
> I've cleared my .cache directory and just finished doing a build from
> master. My transcript now looks exactly like yours, except that, as
> before, there's no trace output. Anything else I need to set up
> locally?
Not that I'm aware of! I just tried the transcript a
Hi Neil,
> It works for me with current Git and `,o interp #t'; full transcript
> below. Note that this is even when all of the debugging infrastructure
> modules are auto-compiled; the only code that must _not_ be compiled,
> for that example to work, is the `rev' procedure.
I've cleared my .ca
Neil Jerram writes:
> There is an unexpected "warning: stack count incorrect!", though. I'll
> look into that.
It is fixed (i.e. doesn't occur) with the following changes.
diff --git a/libguile/stacks.c b/libguile/stacks.c
index 45566ca..849a9c7 100644
--- a/libguile/stacks.c
+++ b/libguile/st
Neil Jerram writes:
> Julian Graham writes:
>
>>> This should all be fixed in master now. Can you have a go and let me
>>> know if you still see any problems?
>>
>> Just built from HEAD. The errors I reported earlier are gone, but I'm
>> still not getting any trace output from the `rev' exampl
Julian Graham writes:
>> This should all be fixed in master now. Can you have a go and let me
>> know if you still see any problems?
>
> Just built from HEAD. The errors I reported earlier are gone, but I'm
> still not getting any trace output from the `rev' example in the
> manual.
I'm sorry,
Hi Neil,
Ack, sorry for not replying sooner -- I've been occupied with
switching jobs and moving apartments.
> This should all be fixed in master now. Can you have a go and let me
> know if you still see any problems?
Just built from HEAD. The errors I reported earlier are gone, but I'm
still
Hi Julian!
Neil Jerram writes:
> You're completely right. The version stuff is historical and no
> longer needed in master, so we should definitely blow it away. In
> fact the same applies to the whole existence of
> ice-9-debugger-extensions. (It was all about wanting to support 1.6
> and 1.
Hey Neil,
Thanks for addressing this. Looking forward to trying it out -- it'll
be a great help.
Regards,
Julian
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Neil Jerram wrote:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> On Tue 14 Jul 2009 10:07, Neil Jerram writes:
>>
>>> but the right thing to do is to fix the scm_set
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 14 Jul 2009 10:07, Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> but the right thing to do is to fix the scm_set_source_properties_x ()
>> code.
>
> Yes, this would be better.
Here are my proposed changes for that, for master. Please let me know
of any comments.
Unfortunately too late
On Tue 14 Jul 2009 10:07, Neil Jerram writes:
> but the right thing to do is to fix the scm_set_source_properties_x ()
> code.
Yes, this would be better.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Julian Graham writes:
> Hi Guilers,
Hi Julian,
I'm afraid this is a case of `snap!'... I've been looking into these
things too and have patches that I hope to commit shortly.
> I went to try out some of the traps / tracing features in the debugger
> last night, and I ran into some compilation
Hi Guilers,
I went to try out some of the traps / tracing features in the debugger
last night, and I ran into some compilation issues with `(ice-9
debugging ice-9-debugger-extensions)'. A patch that resolves them is
attached -- I haven't pushed because I'm not sure I fully understand
the broader
14 matches
Mail list logo
