FWIW, Guile 1.8.8 produces same output as ‘ok’ on a similar (sans the
‘use-modules’ and ‘uniform-vector-element-size’ noise) input, so i think
this situation is a regression. Am i missing something?
--
Thien-Thi Nguyen
GPG key: 4C807502
(if you're human and you know it)
read my lisp
programmers to learn how and when to say no.
--
Thien-Thi Nguyen
GPG key: 4C807502
pgp8YeIY0NhOd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
() Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com
() Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:21:53 +0100
[...] Dunno.
As an experiment, i've changed the cc to bug-guile in this response.
Maybe that will work. Anyway, i'll followup w/ the debbugs folks.
--
Thien-Thi Nguyen
GPG key: 4C807502
))
in test/leak.scm. A related issue is how the error is reported. It
seems strange that the file is unknown.
--
Thien-Thi Nguyen . GPG key: 4C807502
. NB: ttn at glug dot org is not me .
. (and has not been
() Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com
() Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:41:42 +0200
I realize that this is irritating to you, but it is the right thing,
improves the situation for loads of users, and is largely compatible.
I think when you say it is the right thing, you are missing the point.
Try to jump up
() Mark Harig idirect...@aim.com
() Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:39 -0500
(Why do they miss the large similarities but see the small differences?)
This is a human condition that afflicts even programmers.
URL:
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30167
Summary: func-name (#define FUNC_NAME) check not applied
fully
Project: Guile
Submitted by: ttn
Submitted on: gio 17 giu 2010 14:42:17 CEST
Category: None
Update of bug #30167 (project guile):
Summary: func-name (#define FUNC_NAME) check not applied
fully = libguile/Makefile.am ugly
___
Follow-up Comment #1:
Actually, both those files are indeed checked, so this is really
() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:54:05 +0100
Is the warning correct?
Of course it is! :-)
I don't understand the question or the answer.
(That is, what does correct mean?)
Does this mean i'm not being cavalier in the right way?
thi
.
OK, that's what i suspected you meant.
Does this mean i'm not being cavalier in the right way?
No :-) It means I wasn't clear enough!
Thanks for explaining. :-)
thi
There was a warning in about possibly undefined `make-glil-local'
in module/language/glil/decompile-assembly.scm and indeed i can't
find that symbol anywhere...
(This is from a make clean ; make, but i unfortunately deleted
the *Compilation* buffer.)
thi
../../GG/libguile/read.c: In function 'scm_read_expression':
../../GG/libguile/read.c:893: warning: 'charname' may be used uninitialized in
this function
From 030349a79946f992eb2bd58653c39321e9794e95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:49:44 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Use `mkstemp' instead of `mktemp'.
* test-suite/standalone/test-unwind.c (check_ports):
Use `mkstemp' instead of `mktemp'.
Signed
() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:02:47 +0100
I would advise adding explanatory comments in the code,
rather than in the log.
Good point. Will keep it in mind.
thi
also `gnus-summary-pipe-message'.
thi
this by helping identify what are the features
of libgc (whatever version) that Guile requires. With that info,
it would not be hard to write a test for the configure script.
So, please help answer that question (if you can).
thi
what's wrong w/ the above.
thi
First patch to Guile 1.9!
I prepared the following with git format-patch -s, recopying the
Subject line, sans [PATCH] , and prefixing with a horizontal rule.
Is this ok? Do you prefer some other format? Most importantly:
Am i on the right path to regaining official repo write privs?
thi
Personally, i dislike environment variable dependence.
Maybe that's exposure to lexical binding poisoning my tastes...
In any case, (info (autoconf) Defining Variables) has more info.
thi
_
From
As advertized...
thi
___
From e08a92c5f21bab837ab051f5f1866cd066938262 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 15:05:34 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Add cast in `make_vm' to silence
' \
LDFLAGS='-L/home/ttn/local/lib'
$ make all check install installcheck
to an empty /tmp/a/b/z directory on a Debian Etch Sempron (~35 minutes).
Moving right along!
thi
_
From d6d765a2fcb0354146be6492a1212d5ad45fa385 Mon Sep
)
(port-filename (current-load-port)))
might be sufficient.
thi
, i believe) and a weird lookahead case.
thi
_
/* Skip #|...|# block comments. */
static void
skip_hashpipe_block_comment (SCM port)
{
#define FUNC_NAME s_scm_read
int c;
bool pipep = false;
int oline = SCM_LINUM (port);
int ocol
FYI, below is the code that all ci comparison
funcs will be using in the next Guile 1.4.x release.
This means, for example:
(char-ci? #\a #\_) = #f.
thi
___
// libguile/chars.c
#define ISLOWER(c) (islower (c) ? (1 + c - 'a') : 0
. Something like:
(define (smashable? c)
(or (= #\a c #\z) (= #\A c #\Z)))
(define (my-char-ci? p q)
(if (and (smashable? p) (smashable? q))
( (down p) (down q))
( p q)))
Pseudoscheme (numeric operators don't actually take chars),
but you get the idea.
thi
before, we see:
(guile-user) (port-column (current-output-port))
13
after, we see:
(guile-user) (port-column (current-output-port))
0
here is the ChangeLog entry for guile 1.4.x:
2007-11-13 Thien-Thi Nguyen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* running-repls.scm (scm-style-repl consume-trailing
() Gregory Marton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
() Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:29:35 +
This used to work in guile 1.3.4 but I haven't
checked the versions in between.
data point:
guile (version)
1.4.1.107.9.0.7
guile (regexp-exec (make-regexp .) (string #\nul))
#f
thi
-install will read `need_optargs_kludge=no'.
improvements to the detection routines welcome, in any case!
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
.
What do you think?
i think the approach (or something like it) is sound. certainly making
the modules and examples usable pre-install is a worthy goal. thanks
for the suggestion.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http
direct this question to its maintainer, Thien-Thi Nguyen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (not sure whether he reads this list).
the error seemed to emanate from __scm.h. unfortunately, the grep
output was not useful to figure out the nature of the problem. perhaps
grep -C 10 will show more info.
thi
.
please also post the output of running the configure script, including
some mention of what options you passed to it, etc.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
to
avoid adding new interface elements altogether, instead extending
the current procedures by adding optional args, so that they work w/
old code.
more on this later...
thi
ag-check
Description: Binary data
PROTECTED] (tiny change)
* cgi.scm (parse-form): Fix omission bug:
Also url-decode name in each name/value pair.
feel free to include something along these lines for future patches.
(also, i find diff -u output easier to evaluate.)
thi
(1+ second))
and will appear in guile-www 2.6 (to be released shortly).
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
, below is a simple program i use like so: guile -s stress.scm to
eyeball-check for improved behavior (before/after changing the function
in question).
thi
[cc trimmed]
(define (report)
(format #t ~A : ~A\n
(strftime %Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S
in guile-1.4.x and 1.6.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
for guile-1.6 while its name remained the same. this broke old
code (a mistake that is not too late to correct).
your patch would reinforce the confusion.
(btw, simplicity is a matter of how much you leave out of the
picture. ;-)
thi
___
Bug-guile
the
code again at that time.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
is important
anyway (having it be defined to be nothing is indeed dangerous).
so the question becomes: does the intel compiler have an alternate
method to guarantee ordering as required by SCM_FENCE? sorry for
not asking this earlier, when you had said you would be willing to
dig into the issue.
thi
From: Wolfgang Jaehrling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:30:25 +0100
made unambigous. In any case, _something_ is wrong here. :-)
no worries, just figure out what is unambiguous and strive to emulate.
i have seen in scripts: (exit #f).
thi
offer to send them to you (or publish a snapshot).
unfortunately, i don't expect to find time for gush for a few months at
least.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
at it in a week or so, after having completed a (residential) move.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
From: Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 06 Jan 2003 19:55:26 +
... but it fails. Any idea why?
what messages do you see?
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
From: Aurelien Chanudet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:06:02 +0100
Would anyone be
interested in a patch ?
if the patch is small, post it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks,
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
of
iff w/ if. the former is a notational shorthand for if and only
if (see node Manual Conventions). could you correct these and post
another patch?
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
. looks like it's time for me to re-read the texinfo manual -- i
didn't realize there was @math and @acronym.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
or not guile's (srfi srfi-19)
date-week-number implementation fulfills the srfi-19 specification. i
see there is no test for that in test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test. would
you like to write one?
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
reverted the behavior for 1.4.2, but that's not available yet.
1.4.1.84, a snapshot precursor, is available under:
http://www.glug.org/tmp/2002-09/
if you are building guile-1.4.1 from source, you can replace
guile-snarf.in (note the .in extension) w/ the file appended below.
thi
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 20:20:48 -0700
i have experimented w/ back-porting the new popen.scm (including
associated support in libguile) w/o success [...]
turns out i was laboring under the classic stupidity of forgetting to
unpack an SCM
of the (many) changes is responsible for the fixed behavior.
i plan to devote some hours looking into this because it is an area of
libguile i'd like to learn more about. will let you know what i find.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
you build from source? which tarball?
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
fyi, i've added this as:
1007-cc-optimizations-break-r4rs-test
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
From: Christopher Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:44:11 -0500
Index: ice-9/optargs.scm
thanks for the patch. i've applied it for 1.4.2.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman
on as many platforms as possible,
to gain confidence in my own configury skills. bottom line: this will
likely result in guile on MacOS X being supported by its users in some
form or another (as it should be ;-). no worries, just keep the bug
reports flowing...
thi
?
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
`dynamic-link' call.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 03:58:51 +0300
obvious enough.
presuming you encountered this w/ guile-1.4, you should check out:
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guile/guile-1.4.1.tar.gz
(it has this fix and other changes -- see NEWS).
thi
.
that's good news (that i wouldn't have known w/o this tip -- thanks!).
i suppose i could contribute this as a test case. i wonder what glibc
testing framework is like.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:29:40 -0700
i traced this to `regexec' (glibc 2.2.4) and stopped -- it's not a guile
bug after all, as far as i could tell. (also, could not reproduce the
behavior under FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE.)
probably time
thanks for the report. this will be fixed along w/ some other things in
guile 1.4.1 release -- see guile web pages for details on how to get a
cvs checkout (cvs module hack).
i am curious: what is your use for guile?
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
relatively rapidly, we publish it online,
along w/ everything else. check out:
http://www.glug.org/snap/workbook/tasks/TODO
http://www.glug.org/snap/
http://www.glug.org/
what programming experience do you have presently? why do you want to
program in C under UNIX?
thi
install rules
of the appropriate type, exec or data, have completed. So, for
instance, it is possible to perform post-installation modifications
using an install hook.
so probably we should use `install-data-hook' instead. i'll test this
and commit changes shortly, presuming all goes well.
thi
is
that all tests share an execution environment -- this is fine for the
most part, but undesirable for this kind of bug.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
system's old sdrams are prone to
mysterious failures, and i want to rule that out as a reason.)
thi
(use-modules (ice-9 regex))
(define ok section_nameProjects List/section_name)
(define rx (make-regexp section_name(.*)/section_name))
(define (+space
, as far as i could tell. (also, could not reproduce the
behavior under FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE.)
probably time to apt-get update...
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
as it relates to LATER, rather than the reverse.
in practice, this means changing HEAD branch to conform to LATER first,
and branch_release-1-6 to conform to NOW. to me this seems like less
work.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
there was little point in trying to integrate the
changes into HEAD right now.
of course these things follow. i'm not questioning the consequence of
the approach, but the wisdom of using that approach in the first place,
which seems backwards and make-work-ful to me.
thi
/ and inviting review and refinement there.
[...]
what are the areas of divergence? why not add an item for each (as in
port foo to HEAD) to TODO? this would help us understand things more
precisely.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED
applicable would be also made in HEAD roughly concurrently,
but i guess this is saved for later?
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
From: Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 08 Apr 2002 00:22:35 +0200
(One tempting thing is
to not distribute TODO at all.)
i wouldn't mind if we didn't distribute TODO.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
and document accordingly.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
environment
variable I need to set?
i would recommend using automake 1.5. for me, AM_PROG_LIBTOOL is
defined in /usr/local/share/aclocal/libtool.m4.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
tell?
goops can be extended to do such error checking, in any case.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
.gdbinit useful for displaying
SCM values.)
alternatively you can send me hardware to play w/ (haha just kidding).
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
cases. we will probably want to address the
original symptoms first, leaving the harden-guile-against-sadists task
for later.
(at some point bugs database will again be published; this bug is named
1001-local-eval-error-backtrace-segfaults.)
thi
___
Bug
, there are
always exceptions; see Unix. ;-)
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
in tags.h. */
#define HAVE_UINTPTR_T 1
#endif
what do you see? if HAVE_UINTPTR_T is 1 for you, what are the values of
SIZEOF_UINTPTR_T, UINTPTR_MAX, INTPTR_MAX and INTPTR_MIN?
(please cc bug-guile in reply for the archive.)
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing
From: Christopher Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:26:24 -0600
There are two grammatical errors in the comments for
resolve-interface in boot-9.scm. This is a patch for stable;
it also applies to unstable.
thanks. applied.
thi
From: Alex Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:53:36 -0500
The goops manual printed reasonably, whereas the
goops-tutorial was junk.
the tutorial is in the manual.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
described in the comments in the {Architecture and
compiler properties} section of __scm.h, and base further debugging on
this.
at some point when we get back to the time problems, maybe i will have
read enough background to suggest a diagnostic.
thi
From: Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 03 Feb 2002 13:44:29 +
Using the current unstable CVS Guile...
Running under gdb, type in the following:
fwiw, i was able to reproduce the described behavior.
feel free to add this to BUGS...
thi
to help systematize guile error
handling, i'd be happy to do the exceptions.text scribe work, and
integrate small patches. (please signal intent on guile-devel first,
thanks.)
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman
supportive.
i will add this blurb to ANON-CVS. thanks for pointing this out.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
guile-1.5.4
i did in source dir: make distclean cvs update sh -ex autogen.sh
and in another dir:
.../configure -C --enable-maintainer-mode --with-threads --enable-htmldoc
make make check make prefix=/tmp/a/b/c install
which seemed to work fine (i see libguile et al in /tmp/a/b/c/lib).
thi
From: Dave Love [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 15 Jan 2002 11:58:32 +
I don't know which headers one should include for UINTPTR_MAX,
INTPTR_MAX on random systems, so I haven't tried the autoconfiscation.
could you post the output of:
grep PTR config.status
?
thanks,
thi
this make sense?
i suppose it's best to just ask snarfing gurus for a tour, but there may
be usefulness for this tool outside of guile docs maintenance, where all
you have is a tarball you want to fix, and an email address you want to
pipe the patch to.
thi
From: fabrice bauzac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:41:20 +0100
The error in http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/anon-cvs.html
misdirected me.
thanks for the report. fixed.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
still; your local copy may be out of date.
i took a look through:
http://www.glug.org/docbits/guile-doc-out/html/guile-1.7.0/
and although the organization is somewhat confusing, the information you
seek seems to be in section 5.3.1 (Guile Initialization Functions).
thi
From: Fabrice Bauzac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 13:18:06 +0100
[misspelling]
thanks.
it would be nice if someone wrote a spellcheck script that we could add
to guile-tools. could you do that?
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
From: Fabrice Bauzac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 14:14:36 +0100
Let's make that sentence clearer:
because this is the intro, i think it's ok to leave out details like
call-argument order.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL
From: john lin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:10:40 -0800 (PST)
Please advise.
i see the same behavior on my guile, but it doesn't bother me because
normally, boot-9.scm is loaded automatically as a part of guile startup;
i've never needed to load it manually.
thi
From: Chris Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 12:32:32 -0600
-in compination with @code{crypt}, that is why it appears in this
+in combination with @code{crypt}, that is why it appears in this
thanks... fixed in repo.
thi
not
much sense, I'd say.
so what's the idiom to isolate the non-keys rest-args? i can't believe
everyone is writing `remove-keys' (like me!)...
(define* (blah #:key (j 'j) (k 'k) #:rest x)
(set! x (remove-keys x))
(write-line (list blah j k x)))
thi
confused by your suggestion.
in any case, in both branches, i fixed libguile/strop.c only.
[munge munge] i've just tweaked docstring.el (unstable) to use an env
var for some of its directory inits and will be trying it out soon.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing
procedures to figure out how this is to propagate to the
texi file...
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
confused by your suggestion.
in any case, in both branches, i fixed libguile/strop.c only.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
#:k KAY (1 2 3)))
it seems to me `x' should be the same for both `good' and `blah'.
thi
___
(use-modules (ice-9 optargs) (ice-9 rdelim))
(define* (good #:rest x)
(write-line (list good x)))
(good)
(good 1)
(good '(1 2 3))
(define* (blah
20 lines, then
silently exits successfully. this is when invoked w/:
guile -s bug.scm
using -l instead of -s, however, loops infinitely, as expected.
bug-guile cc'ed.
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:43:45 -0800
bug-guile cc'ed.
this is now bug 9 (in cvs both branches).
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
archives) decision to move
away from foo_t type names due to conflict w/ some standard or other.
the fact that i can't cite the reasoning by pointing to some design docs
can probably be considered a bug. :-/
for now, could you try another approach that uses HAVE_* macros?
thi
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
