Hello bug-guile readers,
The tarball at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guile/guile-1.8.1.tar.gz
has a configure script that uses the script config.rpath. But
this script is not shipped with the tarball. This can cause
interesting and weird bugs, if I remember correctly, on some
systems at least. It
Guile's configure script takes fairly long. On a system without
automatic build dependency installation, it is amplified by the fact
that your user might be both impatient and not read the build
instructions, thus needs to rerun configure several times only to find
out there is another dependency
Hi Neil,
* Neil Jerram wrote on Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 01:49:43AM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
I found a few typos in the manual, actually, comparatively very few for
the size of the manual! The attached patches should fix them. Please
be scrupulous, I'm not firm in Guile language details
Hello Mark,
* Mark Harig wrote on Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 09:48:24PM CET:
Both i.e. and e.g. should always be followed by a comma.
Well. Let me tell you. I've written those kinds of patches before,
adding a comma unconditionally and all. After a few maintainers of
some packages rejected them,
Hi Bruno,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 06:40:23PM CET:
Regarding this commit:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=commitdiff;h=c2c550ca9d2442d070f79ed8bacb8db173c72df3
Ralf Wildenhues wrote in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guile/2011-02/msg00052.html
[ dropping bug-libtool ]
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 07:07:30PM CET:
Ok?
A few copyright year bumps are missing.
Some minor nits inline below.
Thank you,
Ralf
Subject: [PATCH] On Mac OS X try .dylib as well as .so with lt_dlopenext
* libltdl/m4/ltdl.m4:
Hi Andy,
* Andy Wingo wrote on Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:19:18PM CEST:
— Function: lt_dlhandle lt_dlopenext (const char *filename)
The same as lt_dlopen, except that it tries to append different file
name extensions to the file name. If the file with the file name
Hello Paul,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 07:35:37AM CEST:
On 06/19/11 12:01, Andy Wingo wrote:
No, this program also exhibits the same incorrect behavior, for purposes
of stack growth checking.
Thanks, I guess we'll have to turn it up a notch. How about the
following test
* Paul Eggert wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:19:25AM CEST:
Testing this is not something for the fainthearted, as it requires
access to all sorts of strange hosts. However, it does seem to
defeat GCC 4.6.0's tail-recursion optimization (-O0 through -O4)
on my platform, which is what is
