Hi there,
I'm posting a bunch of small patches to improve the building of guile-vm
on Ubuntu amd64. I haven't tested _running_ the programs so far; perhaps
I'll have more patches to send after playing with it a bit.
Dale Smith mentioned on IRC that I may need to have copyright assignment
papers s
Hi,
Just a couple of notes.
"C. K. Jester-Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the version of gnulib distributed with Ubuntu 8.04, the string module
> is required for autoconf macros which use gl_HEADER_STRING_H_DEFAULTS to
> work.
Supposedly `gnulib-tool' pulls all the needed dependencies,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:22:08PM +0200, Ludovic_Courtès wrote:
> Supposedly `gnulib-tool' pulls all the needed dependencies, so it should
> pull `string'. Anyway, on `master', Gnulib files are now part of the
> repository so one doesn't have to fiddle with Gnulib.
Thanks for mentioning that. :-
Hi,
I just merged master to guile-vm, but I'm not sure if I really wanted to
do that now. Normal test suites are failing:
lt-guile: gc.c:604: scm_i_gc: Assertion `scm_cells_allocated ==
scm_i_marked_count ()' failed.
/home/wingo/src/guile/vm/test-suite/standalone/test-use-srfi: line 27:
Hi,
On Sat 16 Aug 2008 11:45, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Julian Graham escreveu:
>> Hmmm... I don't recall seeing those when I was writing that test
>> suite. Just to be clear, were you getting those errors before making
>> your changes?
>
> No, but some very unrelated change
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the patches! All applied except for the Gnulib things. I've
merged up with master so now there's no need to invoke gnulib-tool any
more.
Cheers,
Andy
ps. Get cracking on that paperwork! :-)
--
http://wingolog.org/
Andy Wingo escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> I just merged master to guile-vm, but I'm not sure if I really wanted to
> do that now. Normal test suites are failing:
>
> lt-guile: gc.c:604: scm_i_gc: Assertion `scm_cells_allocated ==
> scm_i_marked_count ()' failed.
> /home/wingo/src/guile/vm/test-suit
Andy Wingo escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat 16 Aug 2008 11:45, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Julian Graham escreveu:
>>> Hmmm... I don't recall seeing those when I was writing that test
>>> suite. Just to be clear, were you getting those errors before making
>>> your changes?
>> No
Han-Wen Nienhuys escreveu:
>> even the lazy smob case I wrote about here:
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user/6372
>
> I would classify the use of mark bits outside of the mark phase as outside
> of the defined API. If you want to have weak pointer semantics, use
> a weak hash
It could be an existing problem that is exposed by the new tighter allocation.
With a larger heap, there are larger intervals between recollection of the heap.
Let me run this through DEBUGINFO when I get the chance.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
10 matches
Mail list logo