From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60006)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1eqLk2-0001Wt-IM
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:35:07 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1eqLjy-0003KJ-GA
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:35:06 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:54051)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1eqLjy-0003KB-Cb
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:35:02 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1eqLjy-0004zN-6D
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:35:02 -0500
Subject: [bug#30603] Upgrade Racket to 6.12
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.30603.B30603.151966284519111@debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <87fu5p1v7n.fsf@dustycloud.org> <87606kwnri.fsf@fastmail.com>
	<20180226051621.05b8dfb4@scratchpost.org>
From: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>
In-reply-to: <20180226051621.05b8dfb4@scratchpost.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:33:41 -0600
Message-ID: <87a7vv1ziy.fsf@dustycloud.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org>
Cc: 30603@debbugs.gnu.org

Danny Milosavljevic writes:

> Hmmm... doesn't that break the GC?
>
> I would just remove MZ_IS_NEG_ZERO in the first place.  There's a fallback in the caller...
>
> Or use a newer gcc so MZ_IS_NEG_ZERO expands to a builtin.

Hm, maybe it does break the GC.  I actually admittedly have no idea how
the patch I applied "fixes" things... I was just miming the "solution"
in:

  https://github.com/racket/racket/issues/464#issuecomment-26626089

I have filed my own issue but have not yet heard back:

  https://github.com/racket/racket/issues/1962

Danny, which of the suggestions you made do you think we should do?
Maybe removing MZ_IS_NEG_ZERO is easier?  I don't know what implications
there are in bumping up gcc...