Hello,
This has hopefully been resolved by Guile-Parted 0.0.2 update, so
closing!
Thanks,
Mathieu
Hello,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
>> So perhaps you should define your own ‘define-wrapped-type’ macro that
>> does ‘define-record-type’ + the weak hash table thing, and replace all
>> ‘define-record-type’ instances in structs.scm with
>> ‘define-wrapped-type’. How does that sound?
>
> Seems
Hey,
> So perhaps you should define your own ‘define-wrapped-type’ macro that
> does ‘define-record-type’ + the weak hash table thing, and replace all
> ‘define-record-type’ instances in structs.scm with
> ‘define-wrapped-type’. How does that sound?
Seems like the right thing to do :)
Hello!
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
> And here is what was going wrong:
>
> ped_device_get and ped_device_get_next can return pointers to already
> existing device object. So set-pointer-finalizer! was possibly called
> multiple times on the same device pointer, resulting in calling
>
Hello,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
>> It might be useful to add calls to ‘gc’ here and there in the tests to
>> stress-test memory management.
>
> Inserting gc calls here:
>
> (test-assert "partition-remove extended"
> (with-tmp-device
>"device-extended.iso"
>(lambda (new-device)
>
Hey,
I pushed the missing file :).
> It might be useful to add calls to ‘gc’ here and there in the tests to
> stress-test memory management.
Inserting gc calls here:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
(test-assert "partition-remove extended"
(with-tmp-device
Howdy,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
> I followed your advice and hid all destroy related functions behind
> pointer finalizers. I also added some unit tests to Guile-Parted.
Nice!
I tried “guix build guile-parted --with-branch=guile-parted=master”, but
that fails because
Hey Ludo,
> Does that make sense?
>
> I think we should audit and adjust Guile-Parted in that spirit. WDYT?
Sorry for the delay!
I followed your advice and hid all destroy related functions behind
pointer finalizers. I also added some unit tests to Guile-Parted.
I pushed everything but feel
Hi,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>> I think we should audit and adjust Guile-Parted in that spirit. WDYT?
>
> Yes, it seems like the right thing to do. I'll try to apply those
> changes to Guile-Parted next week. However, as we cannot reproduce those
> null-pointer
Hey Ludo,
> Does that make sense?
>
> I think we should audit and adjust Guile-Parted in that spirit. WDYT?
Yes, it seems like the right thing to do. I'll try to apply those
changes to Guile-Parted next week. However, as we cannot reproduce those
null-pointer issues, we won't be sure if we
Hi Juan,
Juan skribis:
> I ran into some trouble while attempting to install Guix SD (1.0.1.x86_64).
> It happens when I try to do the guided graphical installation, I'll
> transcript the whole text here:
[...]
> 755:33 14 (run-partitioning-page)
> In ./gnu/installer/parted.scm:
>
Hi!
I ran into some trouble while attempting to install Guix SD (1.0.1.x86_64). It
happens when I try to do the guided graphical installation, I'll transcript the
whole text here:
"
The installer has encountered an unexpected problem. The backtrace is displayed
below. Please report it by
12 matches
Mail list logo
