[racket-dev] possible bug in openssl/mzssl

2012-02-27 Thread Timur Sufiev
Consider the following code: (define cert-chain /opt/dozor/smap/config/httpd/server.crt) (define cert-root /opt/dozor/smap/config/httpd/server.crt) (define cert-sca /opt/dozor/smap/config/httpd/server.crt) (define key /opt/dozor/smap/config/httpd/server.key) (let-values (((in-raw out-raw)

Re: [racket-dev] Request for max-log-level

2012-02-27 Thread Matthew Flatt
We've added this function as `log-max-level'. (Also, I tried to fix the instructions in schminc.h.) At Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:53:33 +0100, Tobias Hammer wrote: Hi, i have to synchronize the log levels of a racket logger and an external logging system. Therefore i need the information what

Re: [racket-dev] build hang on s390x

2012-02-27 Thread Matthew Flatt
My guess is that something is going wrong with the GC's write barrier. In src/racket/gc2/newgc.c around line 2677, if you change 1 to 0 in newgc-generations_available = 1; does the build make further progress? At Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:44:34 -0500, James McCoy wrote: On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #24363: master branch updated

2012-02-27 Thread Vincent St-Amour
At Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:39:33 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote: Is there really a need for an N+1 way to do this? This is a common idiom, and there was no way to make it as convenient as it should be. Yes, it's easily implementable in terms of `build-list' or `in-range' but having to roll your own every

Re: [racket-dev] build hang on s390x

2012-02-27 Thread David Bremner
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:46:43 -0700, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote: My guess is that something is going wrong with the GC's write barrier. In src/racket/gc2/newgc.c around line 2677, if you change 1 to 0 in newgc-generations_available = 1; does the build make further progress?

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #24363: master branch updated

2012-02-27 Thread Eli Barzilay
5 hours ago, Vincent St-Amour wrote: At Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:39:33 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote: Is there really a need for an N+1 way to do this? This is a common idiom, and there was no way to make it as convenient as it should be. Yes, it's easily implementable in terms of `build-list' or