From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Raeburn Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: a few proposed patches Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 12:54:40 -0400 Message-ID: <741F7415-54C0-4FE0-894B-2A0DEECEEBFF@raeburn.org> References: <87k404y6i0.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1337705703 21201 80.91.229.3 (22 May 2012 16:55:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:55:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 22 18:55:01 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SWsMJ-000726-0F for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:54:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37023 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWsMI-0004Yt-KX for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:54:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52995) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWsME-0004YO-Of for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:54:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWsM9-0004ni-JY for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:54:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gg0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169]:62811) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWsM9-0004nL-FS for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:54:45 -0400 Original-Received: by ggm4 with SMTP id 4so6803666ggm.0 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 09:54:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=ogHTy+yRQdHeUXGC5Vkn5ZcsY0iWtMKX1tp7e+2Zoig=; b=O//50D/yoZCksrCOnrc0YLg4nubsruomZdj8yTpISnKxMWYu2EdMLomaowkL5ppfRt 5l6iUFNNI3smiqk0OdcqolvLPqJKnYUdAhwuSb2lnMsfKsv7xcc6EzDzIyDR4tTGkj/B t8uQMDManumGt2XBFgCTCGjlPejo/YSmh3RIWYepzhsaMhPuYpbXCWi8LOtShssGSz3d bX8Zi70OiTh2ScIGfLGh/0u8gYO/xu8mWSoyFB+sVbnLW8XM8nls57HrgMt7SWYngo9z xa9dN/kZWtMhAYYW4dz5MZox8ySlVmnLGuvff2XR6t15nbGR2EKfQVvK9nymN1i5TNFn NaJg== Original-Received: by 10.50.46.228 with SMTP id y4mr10470844igm.10.1337705683458; Tue, 22 May 2012 09:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from squish.raeburn.org (c-66-31-202-94.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [66.31.202.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wp4sm10591143igc.3.2012.05.22.09.54.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 May 2012 09:54:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87k404y6i0.fsf@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlcCJnJqUHLEhq0YCcnDzXX8+2BrOOtEA1Un2qyl06xWYDM9lAT+617lDhMSyUp7xqHf10l X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.85.161.169 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:14503 Archived-At: On May 22, 2012, at 04:17, Andy Wingo wrote: > These are related. Until recently, the intention was that 7.1 was the > minimum version, though we supported compilation against 6.8, which is > the version in Debian stable. As it is, the final 7.2 release was = only > made a couple weeks ago, which is too new, at least for stable-2.0. Hm. Okay. Most of the advice I remembered seeing was to get the latest = alpha of 7.something (didn't remember if that was 7.1 or 7.2). But I = thought I also ran across bug fixes mentioned as having been added since = the alphas, that fixed bugs found running Guile. Maybe it was since 7.1 = alphas, I don't recall how old the report was, nor whether it was about = stable-2.0 or master. But supporting 6.8 seems kind of pointless, if we = need 7.1 to function properly. And it looks to me like 7.2alpha2, at = least, should pass the version test I used, and its timestamp is back in = 2009. > On the other hand, requiring 7.2 in master would probably be > acceptable. Input from others is appreciated. It is on master where I was seeing sporadic failures during the build = while using 7.1, which disappeared around the time I switched to 7.2. > I think at least for stable-2.0, some more targeted fix can be > appropriate. I thought about looking to see if there was some additional version = identifier (GC_ALPHA_VERSION?) that would distinguish versions that did = define GC_PTR from those that don't, but since GC_PTR just looked like a = holdover in need of deletion, it didn't seem worth it. Is GC_PTR defined as void* in 6.8? If so, the patch to remove GC_PTR = would still work. Though a configure test could probably be written to = test whether the libgc header defines GC_PTR. >=20 >> * Don't use addresses of code labels with LLVM, even if the compiler >> supports them. At least with the version of LLVM GCC on my Mac ("gcc >> version 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc. build 5658) (LLVM build = 2336.1.00)"), >=20 > This is a very old and buggy compiler, AFAIK. Your system might also > contain clang, which is probably better, if it works. >=20 >> the performance seems to be quite poor; "guild compile" was showing >> about a 4x penalty in CPU time. >=20 > Well, in this case it is worth making a change. But can you try with > newer clang to see what it does? I'd hate to turn it off for new > compilers as well. Hm, it's not what configure picks up by default, but yes, it's there. = I'll give it a try when I get a chance. Ken=