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 15:15:10 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4D9DCE98.5080808@gentoo.org> <4DA3FEA2.7060205@gentoo.org> <4DA5A8DA.6030707@gentoo.org> <4DA5B2C7.8010009@gentoo.org> <4DA6F5D9.8080905@gentoo.org> <87pqo68qw8.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1303996543 6199 80.91.229.12 (28 Apr 2011 13:15:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:15:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 28 15:15:38 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 1QFR49-0006zF-S9 for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:15:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44808 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QFR49-00020L-Ah for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:15:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:53062) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QFR42-0001qp-1L for bug-guile@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:15:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QFR3w-0004oQ-GY for bug-guile@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:15:26 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:34122 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QFR3w-0004oD-D2; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:15:20 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A274C86; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:17:23 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=H/htz/RBlbTq 1pyUJS7UM0edkXU=; b=pz19U1ilhH0vrTPtTy3ju/mwp1rBw1VZqlvRlV9FlSwQ Px8MkukZq6XGIlPy3/iVO3QrQDFQ8rhEdEG337Ks15yHwputZvzo4YhR/rd5uUSg U0uLJcHb6s7RJlU4IPlWF5CUVY6xIpp9NaA708NzHug13jTkn0fjWFBHyF+cCDA= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Kw3w3R UvomXIXjzbxkfrEbbfaaFoBG7ezy+UpgfKURRIJQcUvww8LgnvdSDDsBuaDiFy2S OVd/3WVC+zJ9VlSbsyQWQXrxREhYZ/5gjtmvtQt3cB4zKwXVFo+SP/CoZiyn7oj8 r323xuOVodfrkcV/R6evna1gm0PwUe+pyzGX4= 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 384604C85; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:17:20 -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 69FB14C84; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:17:17 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87pqo68qw8.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:08:39 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D8BF5AD4-7199-11E0-909B-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:5536 Archived-At: On Thu 28 Apr 2011 15:08, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> /* Sanity check. */ >> if (!GC_is_visible (&scm_protects)) >> abort (); Is this even the right check to make? Shouldn't it check SCM2PTR (scm_protects) instead of &scm_protects? Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/