Re: RFD: drop the GH interface.

Do we have a consensus? Ludovic Courtès escreveu: >> The GH interface was marked as deprecated in >> * Explain GH deprecation & plan for scm documentation. >> >> >> Let's really drop it now. > > Why? It doesn't cost much to keep it, does it? > -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PRO

Re: guile-vm .go files in GUILE_LOAD_PATH

Le Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:57:19 -0400, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > I've been tracking the guile-vm branch lately and had a recent problem. > After much head scratching we finally figured out that a previously > installed .go file was being used during the buld. > > We (Andy and I on irc) hacked

guile-vm .go files in GUILE_LOAD_PATH

I've been tracking the guile-vm branch lately and had a recent problem. After much head scratching we finally figured out that a previously installed .go file was being used during the buld. We (Andy and I on irc) hacked around it by creating a new environment variable that pre-inst-guile-env

Re: call-with-values compilation!

On Wed 17 Sep 2008 21:42, "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2008/9/16 Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> This new instruction, mv-call, takes three byte arguments, and at least >> two stack arguments. The byte arguments are the number of args, and two >> bytes to specify an offset to the

Re: [PATCH] Use Gnulib's `strftime'

Hi Ludo... 2008/9/2 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello! > > I'm planning to use Gnulib's `strftime' module on `master' to fix > portability problems related to `strftime', aka. #24130 > (https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?24130). The good thing is that > `strftime' will now work the same re

Re: call-with-values compilation!

2008/9/16 Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This new instruction, mv-call, takes three byte arguments, and at least > two stack arguments. The byte arguments are the number of args, and two > bytes to specify an offset to the multiple values return address. The Why _two_bytes to specify an offset?

Re: array handles and non-local exits

2008/9/16 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > If `get_handle ()' creates a dynwind that ends in `release_handle ()', > then code like the following will no longer work as expected: > > scm_dynwind_begin (); > scm_dynwind_unwind_handler (); > scm array_get_handle (); > > ... > > scm_dynwin