From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Neil Jerram" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Bug#481378: Guile-1.8 FTBFS on mips (and other architectures) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:02:12 +0100 Message-ID: <49dd78620805281502t3e63b3e9u203371d7a4f79250@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080515163940.GA23926@networkno.de> <49dd78620805241400s2edb4ab9p173831bc3f4ca82@mail.gmail.com> <20080524214349.GA27042@networkno.de> <49dd78620805261046t55478b23l8d0d8a45582dd1af@mail.gmail.com> <20080528144529.GA4469@networkno.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1212012154 6642 80.91.229.12 (28 May 2008 22:02:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 22:02:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 481378@bugs.debian.org, guile-devel To: "Thiemo Seufer" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 29 00:03:15 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K1Tji-0003cm-N3 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 00:03:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47655 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K1Tix-0005IE-CY for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 18:02:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1Tis-0005HW-KH for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 18:02:18 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1Tio-0005E9-VY for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 18:02:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48378 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K1Tio-0005E6-T7 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 18:02:14 -0400 Original-Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.177]:18107) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K1Tio-0004Pi-BZ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 18:02:14 -0400 Original-Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id p76so1983822pyb.1 for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 15:02:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=MA2I5LgcIuRrz3+sGlfSvsfMEB2M5iIGXY+MUljRWQY=; b=cIACVeG2cueiHcjq4MOCSoBwIL5E0WcAmCpEqn/spaBj3IJWTOJLPMbGRoD8JPyMEeGpszXPem84/oKg76qdBmndEYmy3OIINetsvALADcF/Q5+59aSGOL8HBmLsG/89KE754bHzu7O2BxlTEjxbf0k4nDuaD4n5kEL5tb47ThA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hjJcot1yByz4yHYZ+pWCRUQDni1tgJzqiSaKXEx4AlkDJ/CEr2nut/tC8ehbqid5bvGgyfeIm22wYf7G2st7mvyVW5l86lb0ZWJP7mHzJpqbuE1oJildfSXJ3Z0uCAGxPwXIusZoKS5f6Oi+gP+MzcSGuI0SDTznSySdD/UsWZg= Original-Received: by 10.114.180.1 with SMTP id c1mr296422waf.121.1212012132383; Wed, 28 May 2008 15:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.197.7 with HTTP; Wed, 28 May 2008 15:02:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080528144529.GA4469@networkno.de> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:7278 Archived-At: 2008/5/28 Thiemo Seufer : > > After a closer look I believe the logic of the test is just plain wrong: > > aux (l) unsigned long l; > { int x; exit (l >= ((unsigned long)&x)); } > main () { int q; aux((unsigned long)&q); }, > > The test returns true for a downward-growing stack, but that sets > SCM_I_GSC_STACK_GROWS_UP=1 ! Are you sure you're not missing a step? According to my understanding, for a downwards-growing stack: &x < l => (l >= &x) is TRUE => exit status of the test program is non-zero => AC_TRY_RUN believes that the test program _failed_ => SCM_I_GSC_STACK_GROWS_UP stays as 0 > For paranoia reasons I checked that > the test behaves the same on mips, powerpc and i386. What exactly do you mean here? (My guess: that you compiled and ran the test program by hand, and that the exit status was 1 in each case?) > Using "(l < ((unsigned long& ..." does the right thing. Amazingly > this means the test is wrong on all platforms, and guile appears to > mostly cope with it. :-) Unfortunately that is very unlikely, so I'm afraid there is still something more subtle that we are missing. Regards, Neil