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: Re: guile-2.0.0 fails to build without threads Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:25:08 +0200 Message-ID: <878vt092m3.fsf@pobox.com> References: <4D9DCE98.5080808@gentoo.org> <87y63gj765.fsf@rapitore.luna> <87aafusesz.fsf@rapitore.luna> <874o62s7hu.fsf@rapitore.luna> <87y63eqmp3.fsf@rapitore.luna> <87hb9d4o8n.fsf@rapitore.luna> <87oc2xdxkv.fsf@rapitore.luna> <87ipt4f9fu.fsf@rapitore.luna> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308328312 29272 80.91.229.12 (17 Jun 2011 16:31:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:31:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: Marco Maggi Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 17 18:31:47 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QXbxQ-00065Y-09 for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:31:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60751 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXbxO-0001lo-OE for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:31:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57492) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXafd-00031C-1K for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:09:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXafa-0008Qo-BF for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:09:16 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:57871 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXafZ-0008QQ-MT for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:09:13 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3D75F68; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:11:23 -0400 (EDT) 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=Fmej+XVrZ2fEOcSCDQgTvtZrKlo=; b=gVs7j1 bKO0OF2fuN0RUYmcDS2b2etMqVfMP+b0zECeppRzr7c1+6k+G8PeOWHe4HRV92F5 S+9uD2hSyoTn7Ov60m8p8w22K5/dILxQqoXLDRaVmCU6x888zEqzqYY31Wv0zoCd Lc++dmEni/TXluLNtkRnROe6x53R7ZIjhDQs8= 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=IgRNdCRpJ7WLBijAB67Mkan16O/NDRA0 aj5bA5l/sNIbvrsqj7hP/4u+x2w1XTC33zhQxizxR9+1aMq3++H16sL7ewDRVoD2 RDtnHeaJ+uswLYdthRp6cUun4Riq3G0g6z2wfxIBdy1ZsPTc2iEI6iQWchWGrWO9 chOEn4ZMk2s= 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 810F15F66; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:11:22 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (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 CEB365F63; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:11:21 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87ipt4f9fu.fsf@rapitore.luna> (Marco Maggi's message of "Sat, 21 May 2011 15:51:49 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0F760BAA-98F4-11E0-99A3-5875C023C68D-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list 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:5651 Archived-At: Hi Marco, On Sat 21 May 2011 15:51, Marco Maggi writes: > Andy Wingo wrote: >> Thanks. You seem to be running on system in which the >> stack grows up. Is that the case? Check >> libguile/scmconfig.h and config.log. > > Yes, I have: > > #define SCM_STACK_GROWS_UP 1 /* 0 or 1 */ > > maybe the problem is that GCC 4.6.0 with -O3 optimises the > program in such a way that the test is invalidated. This bug is also present in Autoconf, where this test comes from originally. I have reported it there. I have no idea what kind of test can defeat such an omniscient inliner. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/