From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: guile-1.8.1 - problems on AMD64 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:04:35 +0200 Organization: LAAS-CNRS Message-ID: <873b9ou1nw.fsf@laas.fr> References: <20061010063445.GA30335@basalt.office.altlinux.org> <87slhw60l8.fsf@laas.fr> <20061011110153.GA12594@basalt.office.altlinux.org> <87r6xdher1.fsf@laas.fr> <20061013062617.GD8294@basalt.office.altlinux.org> <873b9sfyx6.fsf@laas.fr> <87vemnca65.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <20061016062540.GE17598@basalt.office.altlinux.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1160985891 15684 80.91.229.2 (16 Oct 2006 08:04:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:04:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, Neil Jerram , ldv@altlinux.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 16 10:04:49 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZNSp-00020P-Q4 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:04:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZNSp-0007M8-0N for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:04:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GZNSl-0007LI-VE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:04:44 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GZNSj-0007JU-Tv for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:04:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZNSj-0007JP-NV for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:04:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.93.0.15] (helo=laas.laas.fr) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1GZNbn-0005Ut-Mt for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:14:04 -0400 Original-Received: by laas.laas.fr (8.13.7/8.13.4) with SMTP id k9G84aeq013935; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:04:37 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Stanislav Ievlev X-URL: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 25 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vend=E9miaire?= an 215 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEB1F5364 X-PGP-Key: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu Mail-Followup-To: Stanislav Ievlev , Neil Jerram , guile-devel@gnu.org, ldv@altlinux.org In-Reply-To: <20061016062540.GE17598@basalt.office.altlinux.org> (Stanislav Ievlev's message of "Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:25:40 +0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at CNRS-LAAS 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:6156 Archived-At: Hi, Stanislav Ievlev writes: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:13:38PM +0100, Neil Jerram wrote: >> ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Court?s) writes: >> >> > As for this: >> > >> > async.c: In function 'scm_i_queue_async_cell': >> > async.c:250: warning: ignoring return value of 'write', declared with attribute warn_unused_result >> > >> > I don't really understand what this code does, but I have the feeling >> > that line 250 could be rewritten this way: >> > >> > SCM_SYSCALL ((void)write (sleep_fd, &dummy, 1)); >> > >> > Can somebody familiar with this comment? >> >> Agreed. Stanislav, can you try this and confirm whether it removes >> the warning you are getting? > > New compiller is a too smart for it ;) I guess the point of this `_FORTIFY_SOURCE' thing is to help catch errors related to interactions with the kernel (among others). The idea is that when performing a system call, one _should_ be concerned about its result. In the case of async.c:250, I don't understand whether/how failure of the `write ()' call should be handled. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel