From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: bug in throw.c Date: 03 May 2003 23:47:23 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87znm3snx0.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <20030407000136.0F81D8B7@panda.mostang.com> <87fzopk96f.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1051998429 13587 80.91.224.249 (3 May 2003 21:47:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 21:47:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David.Mosberger@acm.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 03 23:47:07 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19C4qZ-0003Wz-00 for ; Sat, 03 May 2003 23:47:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19C4rR-0004CI-06 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 May 2003 17:48:01 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19C4rD-0004B5-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2003 17:47:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19C4r9-00047C-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2003 17:47:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.dokom.net ([195.253.8.218]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19C4r9-00046k-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2003 17:47:43 -0400 Original-Received: from dialin.speedway43.dip236.dokom.de ([195.138.43.236] helo=zagadka.ping.de) by mail.dokom.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #3) id 19C4sW-0004jn-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2003 23:49:08 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 30820 invoked by uid 1000); 3 May 2003 21:47:23 -0000 Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: <87fzopk96f.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Original-Lines: 48 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Original-cc: guile-devel@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2249 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2249 Rob Browning writes: > davidm@mostang.com (David Mosberger-Tang) writes: > > > Today I tried to build guile-1.6.3 on ia64 linux but it failed during > > the build when trying to use guile to generate some documentation. > > Subsequently, I tried the snapshot from April 4th and it had the same > > problem. The problem is quite obvious: in throw.c, we find: > > > > #if 0/*def __GNUC__*/ > > /* Dirk:FIXME:: This bugfix should be removed some time. */ > > /* GCC 2.95.2 has a bug in its optimizer that makes it generate > > incorrect code sometimes. This barrier stops it from being too > > clever. */ > > asm volatile ("" : "=g" (winds)); > > #endif > > > > This is clearly bogus: the asm statement claims that it's writing the > > "winds" variable, which isn't true. On ia64, this has the effect that > > the "winds" gets corrupted and comes out with value "1". Just > > disabling the workaround fixes the issue. Perhaps the workaround is > > legitimate for some platforms, but I suspect it should always be > > disabled for gcc v3.x or newer. > > Interesting. I tracked down the same problem, but thought it was > because the optimizer was being clever with some other code that was > using macros to mess with object internals, and inadvertently hiding > the top-level object from the GC. I fixed it by adding a > > scm_remember_upto_here_1 (winds) > > just after the abort (), but your explanation makes sense. So if we > remove the asm, do we know if we still need a scm_remember_upto_here_1 > (winds) to fix the problem Dirk was initially addressing (and would > that fix it)? (I did the original fix, not Dirk, so I'm to blame here.) The original fix is only needed for GCC 2.95.2 and there only for i386, probably. I would say it is safe now to just remove the asm bogosity, as has already been done in the 1.6 branch. I will port he 1.6 changes to the 1.7 series. -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel