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: [PATCH] Add `fixnum?' VM primitive Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:55:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1300846773-19003-1-git-send-email-a.rottmann@gmx.at> <1300846773-19003-2-git-send-email-a.rottmann@gmx.at> <87sjuc2n66.fsf@gnu.org> <87vcz8rsap.fsf@vir.lan> <878vw3xz39.fsf@gnu.org> <0FF16783-D58C-45C5-90A5-F78A355BFC66@raeburn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301398427 6622 80.91.229.12 (29 Mar 2011 11:33:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:33:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Ken Raeburn Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 29 13:33:42 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 1Q4XB7-00006f-46 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:33:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51566 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4XB6-00041r-5u for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:33:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41242 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4XAy-0003zs-DG for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:33:33 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4XAv-0002Ic-PL for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:33:30 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:59312 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4XAv-0002IW-NQ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:33:29 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F773A39; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:35:16 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=hipw3rv6dfT/ 4MYsTpd8sTftvFE=; b=EjmwB7Uen4JoebsgsPz6ofomjYtX9l0uQd3tU2z0UjNi 6Mii7Ixdp+15XO82a0lISKEXX9oFYdPFHoYuVVRA9F1GGmydZoFtPax50jQkW3xX lilDnyOlSNNZb0hXr4LbykEksQxi1rbeSrAf1jrjt1LJiJ+f36snwrGQPlhBRYw= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=HDmwml opZflddqdZWKNOiXprVvIIR5a3F+MZ5KGKV6v7LYk8mqf5CN1LAb/c4HNx4vQTBH bpQbCGuI+PcS2m8HWaaWWuLynB1zeIDxk9KsE6Cn7NPh6YSsZJpncg2ABQK3TRpy 9kSDtS8u/fkIJKYabAqtY7T974ThjP6QBmPvU= 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 246A13A38; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:35:15 -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 5E9873A36; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:35:13 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <0FF16783-D58C-45C5-90A5-F78A355BFC66@raeburn.org> (Ken Raeburn's message of "Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:48:53 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9D7B81AE-59F8-11E0-BCCE-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:12043 Archived-At: On Mon 28 Mar 2011 20:48, Ken Raeburn writes: > On Mar 25, 2011, at 06:40, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> I guess we could even add the new opcode in stable-2.0 because Andy >> tweaked objcode version check to be smarter=E2=80=94i.e., 2.0.1 would be= able > to >> read objcodes produced by either 2.0.1 or 2.0.0. > > If I switch from a machine with 2.0.1 installed to a machine with 2.0.0 > installed, with both mounting my home directory from the same place, > will the 2.0.1 .go files break under the 2.0.0 installation? If we bump the objcode minor version for 2.0.1, the 2.0.0 installation would detect 2.0.1 .go files, and raise an error. 2.0.1 could load a 2.0.0 .go file however. Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/