Hello, Sorry for the latency...
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > FWIW, I'm actually thinking now that this stack calibration stuff is > becoming way too tricky, in at least two ways. > > 1) The concept of the 'stack debug option being expressed in terms of > some other "canonical" combination of OS, compiler and compiler > optimization level. (I struggle to describe this clearly, here, and > in comments in the code, and I'm sure I would struggle in the manual > too - so that's a bad sign!) That doesn't strike me as a bad idea. "Portable Scheme stack measurement unit" would be a good description, wouldn't it? > 2) The complexity that my latest patch adds to the Guile build > process. And even with this complexity we still don't cover all the > cases (notably cross compiling). Yeah, that's the main issue. Building all of libguile twice isn't acceptable IMO. > Taking everything together, my thinking now is... > > - The problem we actually need to solve is getting a stack overflow > while running make and/or make check, and there may be other ways of > doing that than trying to pick the right number, and to interpret that > number such that it has the same effect on all platforms. You mean "is *not* getting a stack overflow", right? >From that point of view, adding the right `eval-set!' incantation somewhere in the test suite would suffice to fix the problem. > - Based on [2], it sounds like there is part of this issue that we > don't yet understand - i.e. not just the stack growing bigger than the > default 20000 words. What makes you say so? The message just shows that the test suite sometimes triggers a stack overflow. Thanks, Ludo'.