Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will include the test program into configure.in and only use
> __libc_stack_end (or gc_os_dep) when it is really needed.
Done. Steven, please test: either from the "branch_release_1-8"
branch in CVS or a nightly snapshot at
ftp://ftp.dt.e-techni
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (And interestingly, this program says that __libc_stack_end isn't
> needed on my Debian GNU/Linux, despite the comment in threads.c
> suggesting that it _is_ needed on Linux.)
Ahh. Maybe I just had a buggy version of LinuxThreads at the time. I
just tri
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...] I wonder why the change was made to remove the gc_os_dep.c
> fallback option; I can't see anything obvious in the ChangeLog.
> (gc_os_dep.c and the necessary scm_get_stack_base() definitions are
> still there in 1.8, they're just not used.)
I guess
Marius Vollmer [2006-03-26, 02:01:16]:
> Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I will include the test program into configure.in and only use
> > __libc_stack_end (or gc_os_dep) when it is really needed.
>
> Done. Steven, please test: either from the "branch_release_1-8"
> branch in C
Neil Jerram [2006-03-11, 18:43:17]:
> steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Neil Jerram [2006-03-10, 22:41:16]:
> >>
> >> OK, so it's HAVE_LIBC_STACK_END that is not defined, then? When this
> >> is the case, 1.8 leaves scm_init_guile undefined, whereas 1.6 would
> >> use the vast pi
steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Jerram [2006-03-10, 22:41:16]:
>>
>> OK, so it's HAVE_LIBC_STACK_END that is not defined, then? When this
>> is the case, 1.8 leaves scm_init_guile undefined, whereas 1.6 would
>> use the vast pile of magic in gc_os_dep.c.
>
> indeed this is a f
steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Jerram [2006-03-11, 18:43:17]:
>>
>> Would you mind trying the program below on your system? It may be
>> that on OpenBSD the pthread approach works for the main thread, and so
>> HAVE_LIBC_STACK_END isn't needed anyway.
>
> $ cc -pthread -o pth
Neil Jerram [2006-03-10, 22:41:16]:
> steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Neil Jerram [2006-03-10, 22:10:39]:
> >>
> >> Digging a bit further, this looks like it's caused by
> >> HAVE_PTHREAD_ATTR_GETSTACK not being defined. Can you confirm that
> >> when you run ./configure, it sa
Neil Jerram [2006-03-10, 22:10:39]:
> steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Neil Jerram [2006-03-09, 22:35:34]:
> >>
> >> Thanks. What is the Guile version of the existing OpenBSD port?
> >
> > it's 1.6.7.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >> (It's easy enough to fix the tests to use scm_with_guile
steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Jerram [2006-03-10, 22:10:39]:
>>
>> Digging a bit further, this looks like it's caused by
>> HAVE_PTHREAD_ATTR_GETSTACK not being defined. Can you confirm that
>> when you run ./configure, it says that pthread_attr_getstack can't be
>> found?
>
steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Jerram [2006-03-09, 22:35:34]:
>>
>> Thanks. What is the Guile version of the existing OpenBSD port?
>
> it's 1.6.7.
Thanks.
>> (It's easy enough to fix the tests to use scm_with_guile instead, but
>> I'm concerned that we've unintentionally r
Neil Jerram [2006-03-09, 22:35:34]:
> >> We should fix test-num-integral so that it still builds in that case,
> >> of course. Do you also need scm_init_guile for your own programs?
> >
> > no, I was just trying to upgrade the OpenBSD port for guile to version
> > 1.8.0, and it would be cool if th
Copying to the Guile list ... (Steven, please CC guile-devel@gnu.org
on your future emails about this also.)
--- Begin Message ---
steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Jerram [2006-03-08, 08:50:56]:
>
>> We should fix test-num-integral so that it still builds in that case,
>> of co
13 matches
Mail list logo