From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Compilation error with stable-2.0 branch Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:08:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301411306 22987 80.91.229.12 (29 Mar 2011 15:08:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Detlev Zundel Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 29 17:08:21 2011 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4aWm-0006xg-Ll for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:08:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58646 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4aWi-0003o7-2u for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:08:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52894 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4aWZ-0003lm-W4 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:08:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4aWW-0000yn-Ae for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:08:01 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:63427 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4aWW-0000yf-8O for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:08:00 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CA93450; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:09:45 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=/pnKq/NMaD8ltqcwGFa0GYBClRE=; b=lsntk7 l5Hodfu/E0XczekDLESQvHBUr7UyQ6TQtsfeZP5LHwKNpjILbCxCM1UCHV48JR6U X6mk4ELSP8O6c+sLl06gCF+K7PFFWzSGYf15xMGehrqe34t8QK+Qm9X8Cwgied43 ghy5rr11JLOp1llFBYtzBbNEkGHyvW8jl46q4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=FJ/KKLvJYtnKIPjfMv5xlwKtcKXi9wtO TF+g2Jv+UwDLS0a0AHwndILNL+MaQSCkAiFzRroOtTVZxIDCIgTNvU+fotr4yEWt ZK1siReEDdDbXNI6qrnnsWquYAQpnxuFHWLcLSEpu0sC002i4tjBf1jzl96D+fcc iOzfVGd5A8U= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1ABB344F; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FD42344E; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:09:41 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Detlev Zundel's message of "Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:41:22 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 93E09166-5A16-11E0-81C5-E8AB60295C12-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 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:12062 Archived-At: On Tue 29 Mar 2011 16:41, Detlev Zundel writes: >> I'm sincerely sorry that you are going through this pain. It pains me >> to read it! > > Hey, no problem. I've got v2.0.0 if I wanted, but I decided that > reporting my experiences maybe worthwhile. No, it's a good report! As it happens I see it as well now, after a make clean. I think I've tracked it down to 56dbc8a89958fcc401b0980ffcd0047f20470cd3; but the bug is not in the introduced code, I don't think; I believe it's in pre-boot `catch' or something. Anyway, will find it soon. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/