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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:21:41 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4D9DCE98.5080808@gentoo.org> <87y63gj765.fsf@rapitore.luna> <87aafusesz.fsf@rapitore.luna> <874o62s7hu.fsf@rapitore.luna> <87y63eqmp3.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 1303993004 17316 80.91.229.12 (28 Apr 2011 12:16:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: Marco Maggi Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 28 14:16:40 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 1QFQ9A-0005AX-4K for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:16:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42788 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QFQ99-0000Iw-Em for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:16:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51797) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QFQ8y-0000Cq-Ob for bug-guile@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:16:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QFQ8x-0004lS-KN for bug-guile@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:16:28 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:40564 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QFQ8x-0004Xc-IQ for bug-guile@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:16:27 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CB44454; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:17:27 -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=gSa0aik7mfpCkyS8ymcki/NxuEU=; b=Aqn8Pp /+YQgDWw3/aXVA06UoHi3SPldYKsXObUYMC01t2I3l15T7JXKFRxUIo9F5UWjJpu P9301qnN2sQxtyZr+/lPEyaAl8xkT7HDn1MYVE5J7ZWqX0DBSR7x5jZOqMIEQoJ1 bDj+CHGLb0XS5Uw47+bb0jRuUqPI0Eba4dNiY= 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=JMPJzQ96gif+vx3XWoofFrsf18q+0gL5 fVjMY1Oc2dCwjviu0fAdP2gP+tMj5vwJMrX+gpPRyPmzENrkfQi60jTGHqa8qqfR fuq4crT6QJgui9MQAA4DdEVztxEcVKrWOiGcrki0o3MVkcHWy+L9B7zM6ZJg2Hcb GFKYuxiwDDQ= 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 B26AF4453; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (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 E86A04452; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:17:24 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87y63eqmp3.fsf@rapitore.luna> (Marco Maggi's message of "Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:56:40 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7ACFA346-7191-11E0-9139-E8AB60295C12-02397024!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:5532 Archived-At: On Wed 13 Apr 2011 15:56, Marco Maggi writes: > Andy Wingo wrote: >> Interesting. It seems that -O3 is consuming more C stack >> space than with the default -O2. What does your `ulimit >> -a' print out? > > stack size (kbytes, -s) 8192 This should be quite large enough. If you are still interested in debugging this issue, can you "call scm_stack_report ()" in gdb from the scm_ithrow? Thanks, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/