Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-09-05 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Andreas Rottmann writes: > My main concern is/was that by moving to a conservatice GC, and > _consequently changing the API of libguile to assume a conservative GC_ > (as outlined in [2]), you get third code relying on that as well. This > would make it effectively impossible to ever switch

frozen again; release on the 15th

2009-09-05 Thread Andy Wingo
Hey Guilers, It's the 5th of the month, meaning you should pay your landlord/bank, and also stop committing new features to Guile's git repository. Bugfixes, doc updates, etc are still most welcome, of course. This particular cycle brings a new wrinkle, that Ludovic will hopefully be merging the

Re: BDW-GC branch updated

2009-09-05 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Andreas, On Tue 18 Aug 2009 14:19, Andreas Rottmann writes: > Will going from a precise GC to BDW-GC not have drawbacks? IIRC, the PLT > people went in the opposite direction. A quick google turned up this: > > http://www.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/plt-scheme/2006-June/013840.html > > I wonder if

Re: compiling with -DSCM_DEBUG=1

2009-09-05 Thread Ken Raeburn
Okay, I found some more time to look into it. I have a patch that now passes "make && make install && make check" with SCM_DEBUG==1. There was an additional issue in goops.c where SCM_C[AD]R get used with objects that have just been verified to be structs, not pairs. Since there don't see

SCM_DEBUG and developer builds

2009-09-05 Thread Ken Raeburn
I have a suggestion: Let's set SCM_DEBUG=1 by default for the 1.9.x series. Clearly, it should be easy to disable, for doing performance testing builds or whatever. But having it on by default makes it more likely that we'll catch some kinds of errors sooner. There are a couple of obviou

Re: compiling with -DSCM_DEBUG=1

2009-09-05 Thread Ken Raeburn
BTW, the bdw-gc branch with my patch and SCM_DEBUG==1 still fails tests on my Mac. In guardians.c, line 169, SCM_CAR is applied to a non-pair: Running popen.test Running ports.test scm_error_pair_access Non-pair accessed with SCM_C[AD]R: `ERROR: In procedure symbol->string: ERROR: Wrong type

Re: Status Update, Elisp Compiler

2009-09-05 Thread Mark H Weaver
Daniel Kraft wrote: > 4) I've not done anything yet regarding converting '() -> %nil in lists > that are seen from elisp; I think the final conclusion was that we want > such a conversion, and so I will do that. But maybe I can try if it is > reasonably possible to allow switching it off to