From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64 Date: 08 May 2006 00:29:32 +0300 Message-ID: <87slnljzgj.fsf@minimini.mvo.home> References: <3E76C952D0DE7C18F2E3A89F@cadabra-sw.stanford.edu> <87acatj19q.fsf@laas.fr> <87hd5111mz.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <8656DB86D246C1D9ACD84549@tribes2.stanford.edu> <87zmirvoew.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <20060505140534.GA13293@bordell.redhat.usu> <20060506111221.GA16844@bordell.redhat.usu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1147037388 13244 80.91.229.2 (7 May 2006 21:29:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 21:29:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 07 23:29:44 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 1Fcqow-0003Xa-Q6 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 23:29:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fcqow-0002mz-2h for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 17:29:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fcqor-0002m8-QM for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 17:29:37 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fcqop-0002kN-CJ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 17:29:36 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fcqop-0002jo-3m for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 17:29:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [213.243.153.37] (helo=smtp1.pp.htv.fi) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FcqpV-0003Wc-Cz for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 17:30:17 -0400 Original-Received: from zagadka.ping.de (cs181072157.pp.htv.fi [82.181.72.157]) by smtp1.pp.htv.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id 8835A7FC1E for ; Mon, 8 May 2006 00:29:33 +0300 (EEST) Original-Received: (qmail 29452 invoked by uid 1000); 8 May 2006 00:29:32 +0300 Original-To: Miroslav Lichvar In-Reply-To: <20060506111221.GA16844@bordell.redhat.usu> Original-Lines: 24 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 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:5911 Archived-At: Miroslav Lichvar writes: > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 04:05:34PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > The scm_mark_locations function in gc-mark.c calls scm_gc_mark on > > everything located in one of the allocated segments. Shouldn't there > > be a check if the address is at least scm_t_cell aligned? Yes! I haven't really seen the 64bit problem myself, but you theory sounds very convincing. This is very likely the solution. What about this this patch, tho, which is exactly the same as yours, but a bit more similar to the code we have: 137c137 < #define CELL_P(x) (SCM_ITAG3 (x) == scm_tc3_cons) --- > #define CELL_P(x) ((SCM_UNPACK(x) & (sizeof(scm_t_cell)-1)) == scm_tc3_cons) I'll put it in right away, with a comment. Thanks a 18446744073709551616! -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel