From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: Fix for 1001-local-eval-error-backtrace-segfaults - please review Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 20:50:17 -0700 Sender: bug-guile-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020398259 3346 127.0.0.1 (3 May 2002 03:57:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 03:57:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org, johns776@pilot.msu.edu Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 173UCR-0000rr-00 for ; Fri, 03 May 2002 05:57:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 173UBr-0004ry-00; Thu, 02 May 2002 23:57:04 -0400 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u5-c4a-a-172.crlsca.adelphia.net ([24.48.214.172] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 173U9J-0004kx-00 for ; Thu, 02 May 2002 23:54:25 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 173U5J-0004uh-00; Thu, 02 May 2002 20:50:17 -0700 Original-To: neil@ossau.uklinux.net In-Reply-To: (message from Neil Jerram on 02 May 2002 13:59:06 +0100) Errors-To: bug-guile-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:213 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:213 From: Neil Jerram Date: 02 May 2002 13:59:06 +0100 - SCM_SETCAR (SCM_CAR (env), scm_cons (n, SCM_CAR (SCM_CAR (env)))); The copy in scm_unmemocopy, which looks as though it might be intended to fix this problem [...] was this used previously? (i'm trying to crawl inside the head of whoever wrote it this way in the first place.) Fix isn't very elegant, though; is there a nicer way of doing this? both the old way and the new way involve mutating some nested list structure, so i'm guessing that doesn't play into "elegance". i'm wondering what is it about this fix that makes it not very elegant? 2. Rerun of problem scenarios: cool. this touches upon the need to extend the testing framework to handle interactive cases. actually, i believe that's already possible w/ the current framework via (ice-9 expect); the limitation really is that all tests share an execution environment -- this is fine for the most part, but undesirable for this kind of bug. thi _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile