From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: guile-2.0 on mingw: the sequel Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:59:43 -0400 Message-ID: <87zjs5aeps.fsf@tines.lan> References: <83vc2wj4hz.fsf@gnu.org> <83li3siues.fsf@gnu.org> <838uzrioqr.fsf@gnu.org> <83mwo5hjut.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1377450017 21911 80.91.229.3 (25 Aug 2013 17:00:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 17:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 25 19:00:19 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VDdfm-0001H9-B4 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:00:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46929 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDdfm-0005O9-25 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 13:00:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52510) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDdfY-0005En-9P for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 13:00:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDdfS-0002Rl-VE for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 13:00:04 -0400 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:40169) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDdfS-0002Ra-S5; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:59:58 -0400 Original-Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=tines.lan) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VDdfL-0007KW-PL; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:59:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <83mwo5hjut.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:26:50 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 96.39.62.75 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:10694 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > I guess you didn't configure without threads on GNU/Linux, did you? > If not, I suggest to try that, my impression is that Guile without > threads is not used too much on Posix platforms. Hydra, a continuous integration system, runs Guile's "make check" with threads disabled on several POSIX platforms, so there's no need for Panicz to do this test. http://hydra.nixos.org/jobset/gnu/guile-2-0#tabs-status > Anyway, I looked into this a bit. I can confirm that the simple > program you mentioned the first time aborts due to "stack overflow" [...] > [...] it turns out that GC_get_stack_base, which > is implemented in libgc, returns zero as the stack base. Thanks for looking into this, Eli! This raises the question: what's the relevant difference between Panicz's simple 'main' and Guile's 'main' (in libguile/guile.c) that causes one to (apparently) initialize the stack base properly, where the other fails? It would be worthwhile to find out. Thanks, Mark