From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: [FIX] guile 1.8.6 is broken in libguile/scmsigs.c, 206 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:44:14 +0000 Message-ID: <49dd78620901221244k377fbe76j764fb4189f9ad1f3@mail.gmail.com> References: <4977DE91.770C52F2@web.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1232657653 12838 80.91.229.12 (22 Jan 2009 20:54:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:54:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: Roland Haeder Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 22 21:55:26 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LQ6a6-0000Rz-6E for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:55:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38078 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ6Yo-0000cf-Dm for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:53:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ6PW-00046D-Of for bug-guile@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:44:22 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ6PR-00041K-7u for bug-guile@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:44:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38013 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ6PQ-000412-Vx for bug-guile@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:44:17 -0500 Original-Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.184]:5760) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LQ6PQ-0005Jv-GR for bug-guile@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:44:16 -0500 Original-Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c7so765422nfi.26 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:44:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FBatomOfi5yzo6dg97LadTFL6zN6ddgtGik9XXRAnmA=; b=j4aY5gBDKawmgOU4LBd7rnolf0Cm5FXCMmd6JjLY/OGbFJJefwKzgGPKKMfTldPSCq xriyuCrVlpdyAtdRC8Yjevl/+d3tiZzrKcyOW5uCIbRPiVEbVpnOw/ZuDFq+DasnVsiJ U13j+wi8cO8m0ikNn50A0kms6telt4qKbVipY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=affubDyl8nxhbrkPN+lcrmby2PUTzP7+V+vaKir0c2eHoq2cP/upa43RN/NT4dKjrV 055d/4d9M0mHLT+DZuhEE91PEVcth51yIUo39hG6HgJdI51lvZwUeqcPuapIyJ7vNqt9 EsRXTfxb4fynK+cgWzizj2ZZVnaukeURQLEy4= Original-Received: by 10.86.68.2 with SMTP id q2mr349731fga.68.1232657054525; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:44:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4977DE91.770C52F2@web.de> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:4156 Archived-At: Hi Roland ... 2009/1/22 Roland Haeder : > Hi, > > in the above mentioned line you should better type: > static scm_i_pthread_once_t once = {SCM_I_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT}; > > That braces around the initializer are absend which is also my C > compiler is complaining about. But please see the definitions of SCM_I_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT in pthread-threads.h: #if SCM_NEED_BRACES_ON_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT #define SCM_I_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT { PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT } #else #define SCM_I_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT #endif And we have stuff in configure.in that is supposed to determine SCM_NEED_BRACES_ON_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT correctly. So the extra set of braces that you have suggested should not be needed, and we should instead investigate why the configure.in stuff isn't working. Is there anything less usual about your platform and/or compiler? Regards, Neil