From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: stack calibration Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:20:25 +0200 Message-ID: <8763hpll4m.fsf@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1238517317 1691 80.91.229.12 (31 Mar 2009 16:35:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:35:17 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 31 18:36:35 2009 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 1Logwy-0004iM-OQ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:36:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45790 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Logva-0000Lx-KL for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:35:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Loghf-0006Hn-DE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:20:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Logha-0006EJ-OR for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:20:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58303 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Logha-0006EB-LI for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:20:38 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:39279 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Logha-00066E-39 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:20:38 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LoghY-0000jE-TD for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:20:36 +0000 Original-Received: from 193.50.110.227 ([193.50.110.227]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:20:36 +0000 Original-Received: from ludo by 193.50.110.227 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:20:36 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 33 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.50.110.227 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 11 Germinal an 217 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: i686-pc-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZcstB7kIRln1XogXkDj4T+xPagI= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:8359 Archived-At: Hello, Andy Wingo writes: > The recent commit to compile with the stack calibration file, > 7ca96180f00800414a9cf855e5ca4dceb9baca07, breaks compilation because the > compile scripts have hash-bang lines like this: > > #!/bin/sh > # -*- scheme -*- > exec ${GUILE-guile} -e '(@ (scripts compile) compile)' -s $0 "$@" > !# But it doesn't matter since makefiles use `am/guilec', which doesn't do this, does it? (I did a "make clean && make check" before committing.) > So I have a proposal. We should set the stack limit to 60k words. > > Pros: 1) This way Guile will just work. I agree with Neil: it will work for you(tm), but we can't tell whether it'll work on, say, hppa*-hpux* with HP's compiler. So we need this sort of hack. Another hack would be to "(debug-set! stack 0)" when building the compiler (assuming the compiler code is "sane" in terms of stack usage), and maybe even when running tests. > 2) It's simple. > 3) We avoid the evaluator this way. Before the compiler is compiled, we can't avoid the evaluator, can we? Thanks, Ludo'.