Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295

Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

"Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> commit 5f0d2951a0a5179038bee55fe9af688f94738075
> Author: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
> Date:   Thu Mar 24 20:34:31 2011 +0100
>
>     bdw-gc 6.8 compatibility (hopefully)
>     
>     * configure.ac (HAVE_GC_STACK_BASE): New check.
>     
>     * libguile/threads.c (GC_UNIMPLEMENTED, GC_SUCCESS): Define if needed.
>       (GC_register_my_thread, GC_unregister_my_thread)
>       (GC_call_with_stack_base): Define shims if needed.

Aarrrgh.  The intent has always been to support 7.x only (bdw-gc.h has
compatibility stuff for historical reasons), which is already enough
work.  ;-)  The README and various responses we posted in the past are
consistent.

WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo'.

Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295

[Andy Wingo]

Hi!

On Fri 25 Mar 2011 18:58, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> "Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>     bdw-gc 6.8 compatibility (hopefully)
>
> Aarrrgh.  The intent has always been to support 7.x only (bdw-gc.h has
> compatibility stuff for historical reasons), which is already enough
> work.  ;-)  The README and various responses we posted in the past are
> consistent.
>
> WDYT?

I think we've been sending mixed messages.  Some people want to build on
Debian stable, which has seemed to work fine.  In this case I wasn't
sure when these interfaces were added: 7.0, 7.1, or what, and I was away
from the tubes when I was hacking (though I did have a 6.8 tarball).  So
I added this code.

In short, it doesn't much matter to me :)  We can program to the 7.x
interfaces, and if people want to use old buggy software, then we tell
them to upgrade.  But if it keeps working, no problem, right?

Dunno...

A
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> On Fri 25 Mar 2011 18:58, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> "Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>>     bdw-gc 6.8 compatibility (hopefully)
>>
>> Aarrrgh.  The intent has always been to support 7.x only (bdw-gc.h has
>> compatibility stuff for historical reasons), which is already enough
>> work.  ;-)  The README and various responses we posted in the past are
>> consistent.
>>
>> WDYT?

[...]

> In short, it doesn't much matter to me :)  We can program to the 7.x
> interfaces, and if people want to use old buggy software, then we tell
> them to upgrade.  But if it keeps working, no problem, right?

Well, I think it’s an additional burden on us.  GC bugs are hard to test
and debug as you know ;-), so if we add more variability, then we may
get stuck in a GC debugging loop.

Not to mention that 6.8 is slower.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

A few more thoughts...

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> On Fri 25 Mar 2011 18:58, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> "Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>>     bdw-gc 6.8 compatibility (hopefully)
>>
>> Aarrrgh.  The intent has always been to support 7.x only (bdw-gc.h has
>> compatibility stuff for historical reasons), which is already enough
>> work.  ;-)  The README and various responses we posted in the past are
>> consistent.
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> I think we've been sending mixed messages.

Again, I don’t think so.

> Some people want to build on Debian stable, which has seemed to work
> fine.

That can only work with explicit hacks, because 6.8 doesn’t have a .pc
file whereas our configure.ac checks for that.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295

[Neil Jerram]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hello,
>
> A few more thoughts...
>
> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri 25 Mar 2011 18:58, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> "Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>     bdw-gc 6.8 compatibility (hopefully)
>>>
>>> Aarrrgh.  The intent has always been to support 7.x only (bdw-gc.h has
>>> compatibility stuff for historical reasons), which is already enough
>>> work.  ;-)  The README and various responses we posted in the past are
>>> consistent.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>
>> I think we've been sending mixed messages.
>
> Again, I don’t think so.

What is the current best recommendation for libgc to use?

(Note in particular that Guile doesn't build with one of the most recent
releases, 7.2alpha4.  I guess it might make sense to try 7.2alpha5 too,
so I will do that and report back.)

Thanks,
        Neil

Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> A few more thoughts...
>>
>> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri 25 Mar 2011 18:58, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>>
>>>> "Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>     bdw-gc 6.8 compatibility (hopefully)
>>>>
>>>> Aarrrgh.  The intent has always been to support 7.x only (bdw-gc.h has
>>>> compatibility stuff for historical reasons), which is already enough
>>>> work.  ;-)  The README and various responses we posted in the past are
>>>> consistent.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> I think we've been sending mixed messages.
>>
>> Again, I don’t think so.
>
> What is the current best recommendation for libgc to use?

7.x.  Best recommendation would be 7.2, which fixes several bugs, but it
hasn’t been released yet, unfortunately.

> (Note in particular that Guile doesn't build with one of the most recent
> releases, 7.2alpha4.

Really?  What’s the problem with this one?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295

[Mike Gran]

> > What is the current best recommendation for libgc to use?
> 
> 7.x.  Best recommendation would be 7.2, which fixes several bugs, but it
> hasn’t been released yet, unfortunately.

Partially related to all of this is that there are compilation issues
on Cygwin.  Cygwin runs bdw-gc 7.1.  That version of bdw-gc does have
headers that mention pthreads, but, doesn't really support cygwin's emulation
of them.  So I tried configure guile to use null threads, but,
the null-threads build seems to be broken w.r.t. bdw-gc 7.1.

Sorry I'm light on details.  I haven't done much investigation, but,
I though I'd chime in since it was being mentioned.  I'll try to make a fix.

Thanks,

Mike

Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295

[Neil Jerram]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> 7.x.  Best recommendation would be 7.2, which fixes several bugs, but it
> hasn’t been released yet, unfortunately.
>
>> (Note in particular that Guile doesn't build with one of the most recent
>> releases, 7.2alpha4.
>
> Really?  What’s the problem with this one?

Please see the current "Compilation error with stable-2.0 branch"
thread.  (Sorry, I meant to refer to it in my previous email.)

      Neil

Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Mike Gran <spk121@yahoo.com> writes:

> Partially related to all of this is that there are compilation issues
> on Cygwin.  Cygwin runs bdw-gc 7.1.  That version of bdw-gc does have
> headers that mention pthreads, but, doesn't really support cygwin's emulation
> of them.  So I tried configure guile to use null threads, but,
> the null-threads build seems to be broken w.r.t. bdw-gc 7.1.

‘--without-threads’ is temporarily broken in ‘stable-2.0’:

  http://hydra.nixos.org/build/1003940

It should work with 60582b or earlier.

Thanks,
Ludo’.