From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Matt Hellige Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Continuations: possible newbie question Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:51:55 -0600 Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20021218175155.B25665@metro.immute.net> References: <20021218121410.A24945@metro.immute.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1040256472 18679 80.91.224.249 (19 Dec 2002 00:07:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:07:52 +0000 (UTC) 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 18OoE9-0004qr-00 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 01:07:49 +0100 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 18OoDP-0007jY-03 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 19:07:03 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18OoD1-0007jS-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 19:06:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18OoCz-0007ig-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 19:06:38 -0500 Original-Received: from immute.net ([65.164.210.194]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18OoCy-0007gU-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 19:06:37 -0500 Original-Received: (from matt@localhost) by immute.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA25991 for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:51:55 -0600 Original-To: guile-user@gnu.org Mail-Followup-To: guile-user@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from neil@ossau.uklinux.net on Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:04:24PM +0000 X-Mailer-Holy-War: Get Mutt, it bites! X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:1459 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:1459 [Neil Jerram ] > >>>>> "Matt" == Matt Hellige writes: > > Matt> Well, at this point it definitely seems to be a bug. > > I tried your original code in my copy of stable branch Guile CVS > (i.e. 1.6.x), and it worked as (you) expected. > > So either this has been fixed, in which case you could try the just > released 1.6.1, or it is something trickier to pin down, in which case > what platform are you using etc.? > Interesting. At first 1.6.1 showed the same behavior, but I got suspicious that it was something about my config, and tried rebuilding with different optimization settings. The problem went away. I *believe* that the significant change was from -O3 to -O2. Based on the little that I know about how guile is implemented, this doesn't surprise me too much: I assume that the optimization somehow broke guile's stack inspection magic. On the other hand, that could be way off. As I said, I've been using guile (and scheme) for less than two weeks now. In any case, this is almost certainly not a bug in guile, but is it a known issue with building? Is it documented anywhere that optimization beyond -O2 may break guile? I couldn't find it in INSTALL, or anywhere else, but I may have missed it. Perhaps it should be mentioned, as the resulting behavior is definitely a bit mystifying. :) On the other hand, I'll probably still not end up using this technique to implement my call-backs, given the performance penalties and so on. I hope I can just shuffle things around a bit in my native code... Thanks very much for your help! Matt -- Matt Hellige matt@immute.net http://matt.immute.net _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user