Hi Christian.
Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:29:20 +0100, ckeen wrote:
> So the problem will occur if you install these extension with the
> installed chicken?
Yes.
> Is this from a clean slate or are there old extensions hanging around?
Old extensions were present.
But I reran this test as follows:
c
* Sven Hartrumpf [111222 10:19]:
> Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:04:28 +0100, ckeen wrote:
> > Sorry if I missed something, which commands do I need to run to reproduce
> > the problem?
>
> Just one: the chicken-install command from my mail.
I saw that. I am still unsure about the correct circumstances t
Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:04:28 +0100, ckeen wrote:
> Sorry if I missed something, which commands do I need to run to reproduce the
> problem?
Just one: the chicken-install command from my mail.
___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
htt
* Sven Hartrumpf [111222 10:01]:
> If any one can reproduce this, good.
> If not, I known that I have to run such commands several times - no problem
> here :-)
Sorry if I missed something, which commands do I need to run to reproduce the
problem?
Kind regards,
Christian
--
Who can (make) t
Hi again.
Thanks Felix for helping me with bootstrapping more easily.
The following random crash type remains:
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:54:13 +0100 (CET), hartrumpf wrote:
> [panic] `##sys#error-hook' is not defined - the `library' unit was probably
> not linked with this executable - execution term
* felix winkelmann [111221 21:39]:
> The attached patch removes the unboxing pass from the compiler. It
> never worked reliably and has evolved into an unmaintainable
> mess. This will result in a reduction of runtime performance for
> unsafe floating-point intensive code.
Does this obsolete the
