Hello Neil,

Neil Jerram wrote:

[...]
> We have a pragmatic "fix" for this one already in CVS (and so will be
> in 1.8.4); see here:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guile/2008-01/msg00076.html
>
>   
I think this fixed it.
The compiler did not barf.
>> There is also a problem in net_db.c
>>
>> hstrerror needs _USE_IRS defined on AIX otherwise you get a
>> compilation error...
>>     
>
> So how did HAVE_HSTRERROR manage to get defined during the ./configure
> step?
>
>   
I have no idea. I will attach the configure logs.

To compile the code I have manually added the _USE_IRS.
Maybe we will need a fixup in the config script:

if aix*  then define _USE_IRS ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also needed to add: -fno-strict-aliasing

numbers.c:617: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break 
strict-aliasing rules
numbers.c:640: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break 
strict-aliasing rules

(-> gcc 4.2.2)
> Could you send us the last few lines of check-guile.log (in $TOPDIR);
> that should indicate which of the cases in socket.test passed, before
> the one that trapped.
>
>   
I will attach all necessary logs.

The first tests passes all.
The second test have some errors (details seel attached log)...

Running guardians.test
UNRESOLVED: guardians.test: standard guardian functionality: guarding 
independent objects: re-guarding non-immediates
UNRESOLVED: guardians.test: standard guardian functionality: guarding 
weakly referenced objects: guarded element of weak vector gets ev
entually removed from weak vector
UNRESOLVED: guardians.test: standard guardian functionality: guarding 
weak containers: element of guarded weak vector gets collected
[..]
Running numbers.test
FAIL: numbers.test: /: 1/complex: (/ 1e200+1e200i)
FAIL: numbers.test: exact->inexact: mantdig ones then 011..11, round 
down: (64 332306998946228949779207691360534527 3.32306998946229e35
): pos: (= 3.32306998946229e35)
[...]
Running ports.test
UNRESOLVED: ports.test: port-for-each: passing freed cell
[...]
FAIL: numbers.test: exact->inexact: 2^mantdig then 100..001, round up: 
(97 5708990770823839207320493820740630171355185153 5.70899077082
384e45): neg: (= -5.70899077082384e45)
[...]
Running ports.test
UNRESOLVED: ports.test: port-for-each: passing freed cell
[...]
Running srfi-14.test
UNRESOLVED: srfi-14.test: Latin-1 (8-bit charset): char-set:letter 
(membership)
UNRESOLVED: srfi-14.test: Latin-1 (8-bit charset): char-set:letter (size)
UNRESOLVED: srfi-14.test: Latin-1 (8-bit charset): char-set:lower-case 
(size)
UNRESOLVED: srfi-14.test: Latin-1 (8-bit charset): char-set:upper-case 
(size)
UNRESOLVED: srfi-14.test: Latin-1 (8-bit charset): char-set:punctuation 
(membership)
[...]
Running syntax.test
UNRESOLVED: syntax.test: while: in empty environment: empty body
UNRESOLVED: syntax.test: while: in empty environment: initially false
UNRESOLVED: syntax.test: while: in empty environment: iterating
Running threads.test
Running time.test
FAIL: time.test: strftime: C99 %z format: GMT
FAIL: time.test: strftime: C99 %z format: EST+5
Running unif.test
Running version.test
Running weaks.test

Totals for this test run:
passes:                 11514
failures:               347
unexpected passes:      0
expected failures:      25
unresolved test cases:  13
untested test cases:    0
unsupported test cases: 11
errors:                 0

FAIL: check-guile
==================================
1 of 1 tests failed
Please report to bug-guile@gnu.org
==================================

At least the memory error is gone :-)

Info:

I changed numbe.c

#define SCM_COMPLEX_VALUE(z)                                    \
 (SCM_COMPLEX_REAL (z) + _Complex_I * SCM_COMPLEX_IMAG (z))

==>

#define SCM_COMPLEX_VALUE(z)                                    \
 (SCM_COMPLEX_REAL (z) + 1.0fi * SCM_COMPLEX_IMAG (z))

The _Complex_I and 1.0fi should evaluate to the same result:

1.0fi      0.000000, 1.000000
_Complex_I 0.000000, 1.000000


> Thanks,
>         Neil
>
>
>   
Thanks,
  Rainer