Good point!
I assumed (based on earlier conversations?) that Sam knows about
`--enable-racket=...`. I thought that he was commenting on how the
build process would create things that are needed only for `racketcgc`,
even when `racketcgc` itself isn't needed.
I've now pushed changes that should sk
What about ./configure --enable-racket=`which racket` ?
Already needed and used for cross-compilation.
Tobias
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:00:21 +0200, Matthew Flatt
wrote:
I'm not sure how difficult it will be. It's tedious enough that the
last time I thought about it, I just left a note next
I'm not sure how difficult it will be. It's tedious enough that the
last time I thought about it, I just left a note next to
"no-cgc-needed" in "racket/src/racket/Makefile.in", but maybe it's
worth pursuing now.
At Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:39:55 -0700, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> How difficult would i
How difficult would it be to allow the bootstrap process to use a
preexisting Racket installation? This would alleviate some of the
performance loss, for example in rebuilds by developers or in continuous
integration.
Sam
On Aug 11, 2014 11:16 PM, "Matthew Flatt" wrote:
> I've changed the Racket
The gcc 4.9 release notes warn about this optimization:
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html
I'm surprised that this change hasn't caused more trouble for us.
At Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:39:01 +0100, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Apparently, when gcc 4.9.1 sees
>
> memcpy(x, y, n);
> if (y)
>
Apparently, when gcc 4.9.1 sees
memcpy(x, y, n);
if (y)
then it believes `y` can be assumed to be NULL --- even if `n` turns
out to be zero --- and so the conditional can be optimized away.
I'm surprised by that rule, but it's easy enough to move the test
before the memcpy().
At Tue,
On 2014-08-12 06:06:51 +0100, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> What platform are you using?
>
> I imagine that running `./racketcgc` within the "racket" subdirectory
> of your build directory will similarly crash. Can you get any
> information from running `gdb racketcgc`?
This is on Linux. Running the bui
At Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:43:04 -0400, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2014-08-12 05:16:21 +0100, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > If you have an existing build in a repo checkout, then `make` is likely
> > to fail, because the makefile dependencies are not precise enough to
> > deal with the switch. You can disca
On 2014-08-12 05:16:21 +0100, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> If you have an existing build in a repo checkout, then `make` is likely
> to fail, because the makefile dependencies are not precise enough to
> deal with the switch. You can discard your old build directory, or it
> might work to simply delete
>
I've changed the Racket CGC implementation --- which is mostly used
only to build the normal Racket variant --- to use SGC by default,
instead of the Boehm GC. The intent of the switch is to make the more
portable GC the default.
If you have an existing build in a repo checkout, then `make` is lik
10 matches
Mail list logo
