Hi Noah,
Noah Lavine writes:
> When building the latest git master, I get this error:
>
> GUILEC language/tree-il/compile-glil.go
> Assertion failed: (table->n_items < size), function rob_from_rich,
> file weak-table.c, line 252.
>
> Has weak-table.c changed recently?
This is just a guess, but
Hi Andy,
> commit 24ea9f9c3abb8d9398df4810b815075593ba67c8
> Author: Andy Wingo
> Date: Tue Mar 6 22:21:39 2012 +0100
>
> ports.c: inline get_codepoint
>
> * libguile/ports.c (get_codepoint): Add inline keyword. It showed up
> high in benchmarks, and it's static, so it's pro
Hi Andy,
> commit 283ab48d3f20a5c5281cafc29f0c30c8d8ace9ee
> Author: Andy Wingo
> Date: Wed Mar 7 19:01:56 2012 +0100
>
> faster (make-prompt-tag); default-prompt-tag is a parameter
>
> * module/ice-9/boot-9.scm (default-prompt-tag): Once parameters have
> booted, redefine as
When building the latest git master, I get this error:
GUILEC language/tree-il/compile-glil.go
Assertion failed: (table->n_items < size), function rob_from_rich,
file weak-table.c, line 252.
Has weak-table.c changed recently?
Noah
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver writes:
>>
>>> Excellent! As long as you load everything in the right order, such that
>>> macros are defined before they are used, I don't see why there should be
>>> any other problems related to macros and compilation.
>>
>> B
Hi!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Tue 06 Mar 2012 18:20, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo skribis:
>>
>>> I have pushed a patch to master that changes the implementation of the
>>> dynamic stack
>>
>> The “dynwind stack” actually (I misread it the first time.)
>
> Yes, it did h
Hi,
Nala Ginrut skribis:
> Is there a way to configure Guile as a minimum one?
> Or maybe another question: is there an official way to cut Guile small?
There are a few configure options to disable features:
--disable-posix omit non-essential POSIX interfaces
--disable-networking
Hi Mark!
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> I occasionally talk about my large Guile TODO list, and sometimes people
> say that I should put it somewhere public. Okay, here it is (not
> including my ticked messages in Gnus). It includes some items that are
> probably controversial, especially near the e
Hi!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Wed 08 Feb 2012 14:44, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> What do you think of adding a ‘cancel’ primitive to futures?
>
> It sounds good, but tricky to implement. I'm also not sure it's exactly
> the right interface -- for example, Java seems to have switc
Hi,
Andy Wingo skribis:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon 27 Feb 2012 16:57, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
How does this change influence ‘benchmark-suite/benchmarks/ports.bm’?
>>>
>>> Dunno, that wasn't my benchmark. It makes the web server go faster
>>> (e.g. guile examples/web/debug-sxml.scm)
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Hello all,
>
> I occasionally talk about my large Guile TODO list, and sometimes people
> say that I should put it somewhere public. Okay, here it is (not
> including my ticked messages in Gnus).
Were you planning to do anything on the seventh day?
--
David Kastrup
On Wed 07 Mar 2012 20:53, Mark H Weaver writes:
> I occasionally talk about my large Guile TODO list, and sometimes people
> say that I should put it somewhere public. Okay, here it is (not
> including my ticked messages in Gnus). It includes some items that are
> probably controversial, especi
Hi Mark,
On Wed 07 Mar 2012 20:28, Mark H Weaver writes:
> Would it be possible to fix stable-2.0 to run finalizers in a separate
> thread?
I don't know. It seems a bit destabilizing.
One thing to consider is that master uses the GC_set_finalizer_notifier
/ GC_invoke_finalizers API, which doe
Hello all,
I occasionally talk about my large Guile TODO list, and sometimes people
say that I should put it somewhere public. Okay, here it is (not
including my ticked messages in Gnus). It includes some items that are
probably controversial, especially near the end, and I'd rather not get
stuc
Andy Wingo writes:
>> The good news is that it should be possible to fix this (pre-existing)
>> class of problems for 'symbols_lock' in stable-2.0 by changing
>> 'symbol_lookup_assoc_fn' to avoid allocation.
>
> That's not enough. Adding spine segments, ribs, and associating a
> disappearing lin
Hi Mark!
Thanks for the response. I have various minor thoughts here and one
serious note on GC.
On Wed 07 Mar 2012 17:43, Mark H Weaver writes:
>>> + if (!STRINGBUF_SHARED (buf))
>>> +{
>>> + scm_i_pthread_mutex_lock (&stringbuf_write_mutex);
>>> + SCM_SET_CELL_WORD_0 (buf, SCM
I found current read-delimited will return the whole string if delimiter
can't be found. It's inconvenient for some cases.
I expect it return #f for this.
And Andy said it maybe because some back compatible reasons. So I decide to
add an option to do this job.
If we use the original version, we mus
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 06 Mar 2012 10:55, Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> +static void
>> +set_stringbuf_shared (SCM buf)
>> +{
>> + /* Don't modify BUF if it's already marked as shared since it
>> + might be a read-only, statically allocated stringbuf. */
>> + if (!STRINGBUF_SHARED (buf)
Hi Mark,
On Tue 06 Mar 2012 10:55, Mark H Weaver writes:
> +static void
> +set_stringbuf_shared (SCM buf)
> +{
> + /* Don't modify BUF if it's already marked as shared since it
> + might be a read-only, statically allocated stringbuf. */
> + if (!STRINGBUF_SHARED (buf))
> +{
> +
On Wed 07 Mar 2012 00:17, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Dunno, perhaps I have not yet been fully indoctrinated :-)
>
> I actually view the change log chapter of the GCS as a rational
> justification of the practice, more than as a a doctrine. :-)
Sure. I just meant that I also progr
Hi Noah,
On Wed 07 Mar 2012 07:05, Noah Lavine writes:
>>> The “dynwind stack” actually (I misread it the first time.)
>>
>> Yes, it did have this name before. (More often, "the wind list".) But
>> since "dynwind" is overloaded so much (dynamic-wind operator, ,
>> scm_dynwind_*), and the dynam
21 matches
Mail list logo
