From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: bug#10093: Problem compiling related to block-growth-factor fluid Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:55:17 +0100 Message-ID: <87hb1vnjdm.fsf@pobox.com> References: <20111121092607.GA26768@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <20111121104333.GA17397@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <20111121133506.GA31636@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1322051753 20630 80.91.229.12 (23 Nov 2011 12:35:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:35:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org, 10093-done@debbugs.gnu.org To: rixed@happyleptic.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 23 13:35:49 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RTC3I-0008GI-Mn for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:35:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55748 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RTC3I-0000g7-4e for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:35:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41681) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RTC31-0000dO-7V for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:35:45 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RTC2v-00048v-2K for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:35:31 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:61678 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RTC2u-00048r-VU for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:35:25 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5EC6AE3; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:35:24 -0500 (EST) 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=JoAoVwphLwNuTqaZcqnUMyeuTdg=; b=mo6fr0 GNbA3fjmJYhTyxVawJYVI4w87mn+XPV1h2uPOo3r+cZIE/wzyR2BcGr5qjdUORBC gdlWbB/fxOpUTRoldYMKe+QQj0VUc9sbKao64lNFCOdE8kxM8boE8o9KSz2f3803 0GxxpzaadTbSen1L3yfOIuKD9j6tytXjPLTkc= 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=YqSLIB/PbUFgCT9yJq1HaUjYf3YAgOHL MXrOnLvOFKiKxqKzcV/J3b/yN6SLZKZHbzrQrf72epNfRneAAoCBGbAIQglRhY/r 0yMmP4H39W++xMnE0cRNeXv7xECOrqtQy4yerKPgKVdUUciJ4jbLgZU/43xk0sEt MKA434QNsbU= 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 9243B6AE2; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:35:24 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (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 081276AE0; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:35:23 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20111121133506.GA31636@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> (rixed@happyleptic.org's message of "Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:35:06 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9D728750-15CF-11E1-B300-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:8981 Archived-At: On Mon 21 Nov 2011 14:35, rixed@happyleptic.org writes: > Here is a minimal example reproducing the problem. > Note that it only fails the first time (when scheme.scm is compiled). Fixed in stable-2.0. Thanks for the report! Andy -- http://wingolog.org/