From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Steve Ellcey Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Preparing for a 1.6.8 release. Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200510192231.PAA27954@hpsje.cup.hp.com> References: <8764rtp3zh.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1129761093 29154 80.91.229.2 (19 Oct 2005 22:31:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:31:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 20 00:31:32 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESMSv-0004u6-Lk for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:31:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESMSv-0002wE-5r for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:31:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ESMSs-0002w7-TU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:31:18 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ESMSr-0002vu-1X for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:31:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESMSq-0002vr-SW for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:31:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [156.153.255.237] (helo=palrel12.hp.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1ESMSq-0001XR-PK for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:31:17 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp1.ptp.hp.com (smtp.cup.hp.com [15.1.28.250]) by palrel12.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F0E40281F; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from hpsje.cup.hp.com (hpsje.cup.hp.com [15.244.96.221]) by smtp1.ptp.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD472355AFA; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:31:11 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: (from sje@localhost) by hpsje.cup.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_24419+JAGae58098)/8.7.3 TIS Messaging 5.0) id PAA27954; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-To: rlb@defaultvalue.org In-Reply-To: <8764rtp3zh.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:5318 Archived-At: > > Given that things don't work with 1.6.8.rc0 even after changing __ia64__ > > to IA64 I think it is reasonable not to address this problem for 1.6.8. > > Well, if we can do it safely and fairly easily, I'd still be inclined > to add the code for ucontext_t on HP-UX because that lowers the bar > for future progress. Is there a sufficiently specific test that you > think might be appropriate? Well the test for IA64 and not HP-UX would be "defined(__ia64) && !defined(__hpux)". __hpux and __ia64 are defined by both the HP compilers and GCC on IA64 HP-UX. __hpux__ and __ia64__ are only defined by GCC. IA64 Linux GCC defines __ia64 and __ia64__ but not any of the hpux macros. > Well if your needs aren't short-to-medium term, or if your intended > purpose can handle a potentially very unstable guile, then you might > want to focus on CVS HEAD (i.e. 1.7). However, if you need something > stable, then 1.6 is it. Sounds like 1.6 is more in line with what I want (1.6.9 if not 1.6.8). Steve Ellcey sje@cup.hp.com _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel