From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#10681: GNU Guile 2.0.5 released Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:50:32 +0100 Message-ID: <874nvasrg7.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87r4yg3l3e.fsf@gnu.org> <6B207FB0-C631-4DF8-A09D-046E2EB27361@telia.com> <87hazbg341.fsf@netris.org> <0C009B24-5C81-47B1-8C82-97B6DFEC3B68@telia.com> <878vknfywv.fsf@netris.org> <2810F73C-12D6-4203-9BDA-E7C0CFDF5959@telia.com> <87lione31p.fsf@netris.org> <2C04330C-5F9D-449A-B8B0-748258D5A22D@telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1328097118 30968 80.91.229.3 (1 Feb 2012 11:51:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:51:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Mark H Weaver , Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 10681@debbugs.gnu.org To: Hans Aberg Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 01 12:51:56 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RsYjD-0002Jc-GN for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:51:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37635 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsYjC-0006wq-Lq for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:51:54 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57002) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsYj6-0006sx-U8 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:51:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsYj0-0006Ly-I1 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:51:48 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:44643) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsYj0-0006Ls-Ea for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:51:42 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RsYjK-0003Fi-GW for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:52:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Andy Wingo Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:52:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10681 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10681-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10681.132809707312438 (code B ref 10681); Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:52:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10681) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Feb 2012 11:51:13 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48266 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RsYiW-0003EZ-B0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:51:12 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:56630 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RsYiJ-0003Dx-2c for 10681@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:51:10 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BA27026; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:50:37 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=TL2GiXwnRv8EYlsL+hjrYBgz2bY=; b=u6gzPf yR/WwoRP8NyzNLbtUqwflXP+iiwbBZq+E6dzYx3ig9apsT383eH9HxTXvAkLBdNj 3tnvRYFaTlMJYyzTfhQfMM23GkVvIvKJMfmMIIOVkdGQrbO9bBwdmuAM8KOJs98N EFu0NNvZoEwFNo/MYs4QPZGEKhUWCDkUWQ2UE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=dQoM3H6aG5CJ5RgiVUGE4mlLNkInWby/ 3bd2jm/B4XtvV5EaYrWQQGPTYtIjCcZ0GL2V5UboP2imMtrkWH+KVvqn/fAuoS5L v+8xw8tDGI6ZNqQ7dQqAE8Q2OSBDveIM0uhZcFCz2yHOwdFWgRa3GLIIJdiGhBPg 6HX+x3YAiv4= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557EC7025; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:50:37 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [85.50.103.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 989FC7024; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:50:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <2C04330C-5F9D-449A-B8B0-748258D5A22D@telia.com> (Hans Aberg's message of "Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:18:48 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F48A8470-4CCA-11E1-9581-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:6141 Archived-At: On Wed 01 Feb 2012 10:18, Hans Aberg writes: > It suggests that problem is with llvm-gcc (an clang), I think. With > gcc-4.7 there is no libffi failure. Is it correct to say that you experience this issue if libffi is compiled with llvm-gcc / clang, but do not experience this issue if libffi is compiled with gcc-4.7 ? Trying to summarize; it has been hard to follow :) Andy -- http://wingolog.org/