Neil Jerram escreveu:
> So, what do you think? There have been discussions of release
> strategy in the past, which I've seen as 50/50 between the split
> stable and development model (which we have now) and the steady new
> feature model (described above), but I don't recall them considering
> th
Here's another one, I'm trying to dig into this:
Its more or less the same crash as the one reported at:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/228097
and
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04568.html
My stack below.
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 0xf53
Howdy Neil,
Great post!
On Tue 11 Nov 2008 02:23, "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How should we organize future Guile releases?
>
> In my view, the most important thing for Guile's near-to-medium-term
> future is focus. By that I mean having developers working on, and
> users using,
I've tripped over some more unexpected threading behaviour:
It appears that the current port setting is lost, with each new
thread. So, for example, if I set the current output port in the
first 3 threads created, wait, and create a 4th thread, the
current output port is not set in the fourth thr
Hi,
On Tue 11 Nov 2008 22:05, "Linas Vepstas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/11/11 Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> --enable-threads, or vice versa. Probably what happened to you?
>
> Don't think so. The 1.8.3 was from Ubuntu Hardy. I assume
> it had threads turned on
Nope, Debian builds -
2008/11/11 Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Any ideas for binary compatibility for the "micro" revisions?
>
> I think it needs to be guaranteed.
>
>> I recently discovered that a library compiled against 1.8.3
>> would core dump when used with an application compiled
>> against 1.8.5.
Ludovic a
Hello!
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my view, the most important thing for Guile's near-to-medium-term
> future is focus. By that I mean having developers working on, and
> users using, as far as possible, a similar level of code. In the
> past, we did big jumps - from 1.4.x to
Hi Linas,
On Tue 11 Nov 2008 04:44, "Linas Vepstas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/11/10 Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> I also think it will help us manage API incompatibilities better. I
>> think our default position from now on should be to maintain
>> source-level (API) compatibil
Hi Linas,
"Linas Vepstas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any ideas for binary compatibility for the "micro" revisions?
> I recently discovered that a library compiled against 1.8.3
> would core dump when used with an application compiled
> against 1.8.5.
Do you remember what caused it?
I don't r
Hi,
I am finding that things defined in one thread are not always
visible in another. This seems to be due to some threads
having a different current-module than others. I think this is a bug.
The example code below shows the issue. Help, comments
appreciated.
--linas
/**
* Guile threading b
Any ideas for binary compatibility for the "micro" revisions?
I recently discovered that a library compiled against 1.8.3
would core dump when used with an application compiled
against 1.8.5. Operationally, not a big deal, really; I just
recompiled the lib, but emotionally, it did give
2008/11/11 Mike Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've been playing with guile and mysql recently, but mostly with my own
> interface code.
Well, I believe that the world is better when there are
fewer, stronger libraries, as that promotes stability,
maintainability, and free-of-bugs-ness.
With that t
>From: Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Did you find this by code review, or have you been carrying this patch
> for a while? I was wondering if I was the sole user in the world of this
> stuff.
I saw it when browsing the files after you pushed your new release.
I've been playing with guile
Quoth "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In my view, when we add in [the community focus] angle, the steady new
> feature model is better.
As a non-developer, but committed user, I couldn't agree more.
Sebastian
Hi!
2008/11/10 Mike Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A patch. SCM_ASSERT usually uses the scheme function name in the assertion
> error instead of the C function name. Also, in make_g_db_handle, the
> assertion for the second parameter is incorrect.
Wow! Unexpected -- thanks! I've applied it; no
15 matches
Mail list logo
