From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marco Maggi Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: guile-2.0.0 fails to build without threads Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 15:51:49 +0200 Message-ID: <87ipt4f9fu.fsf@rapitore.luna> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1305985759 14752 80.91.229.12 (21 May 2011 13:49:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 13:49:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 21 15:49:15 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 1QNmYM-00010k-Mj for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 May 2011 15:49:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40410 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QNmYL-0007kp-ST for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 May 2011 09:49:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56843) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QNmYI-0007kh-Q3 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sat, 21 May 2011 09:49:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QNmYH-0002K2-Oa for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sat, 21 May 2011 09:49:10 -0400 Original-Received: from relay-pt1.poste.it ([62.241.4.164]:44642) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QNmYH-0002Jo-Jb for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sat, 21 May 2011 09:49:09 -0400 Original-Received: from rapitore.luna (93.147.77.220) by relay-pt1.poste.it (8.5.121.01) (authenticated as marco.maggi-ipsu@poste.it) id 4DD6F2B60000FB84; Sat, 21 May 2011 15:49:05 +0200 X-Loop: marco@maggi.it.invalid X-Mailer: GNU Emacs In-Reply-To: (Andy Wingo's message of "Sat, 21 May 2011 10:45:50 +0200") Original-Lines: 74 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 9 X-Received-From: 62.241.4.164 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:5602 Archived-At: Andy Wingo wrote: > On Fri 20 May 2011 20:41, 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 */ >> in "scmconfig.h"; my system is just a i686-pc-linux-gnu. > But on those systems, the stack grows down, no? > I suggest that this is a configuration error somehow. Check your > config.log. Someone left ACTION-IF-FALSE empty and also left the test without "checking" message in this chunk of "configure.ac": SCM_I_GSC_STACK_GROWS_UP=0 AC_RUN_IFELSE([AC_LANG_SOURCE( [AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT int find_stack_direction () { static char *addr = 0; auto char dummy; if (addr == 0) { addr = &dummy; return find_stack_direction (); } else return (&dummy > addr) ? 1 : -1; } int main () { return find_stack_direction () < 0; }])], [SCM_I_GSC_STACK_GROWS_UP=1], [], [AC_MSG_WARN(Guessing that stack grows down -- see scmconfig.h)]) so I can only guess that what happens is described by the following chunk of "config.log": configure:39214: checking for iconveh_escape_sequence configure:39232: gcc -o conftest -O3 -march=i686 -mtune=i686 conftest.c -lcrypt -lm >&5 configure:39232: $? = 0 configure:39232: ./conftest configure:39232: $? = 0 configure:39234: result: 2 configure:39295: gcc -o conftest -O3 -march=i686 -mtune=i686 conftest.c -lcrypt -lm >&5 configure:39295: $? = 0 configure:39295: ./conftest configure:39295: $? = 0 configure:39310: checking for BDW_GC the test between "checking for iconveh_escape_sequence" and "checking for BDW_GC"; the exit status is zero, which causes the variable to be correctly set to: SCM_I_GSC_STACK_GROWS_UP='1' maybe the problem is that GCC 4.6.0 with -O3 optimises the program in such a way that the test is invalidated. -- Marco Maggi