Reviving Guile-VM

2005-04-27 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, I've started trying to revive Guile-VM which was written by Keisuke Nishida 5 years ago [1] and was unfortunately never finished nor adopted. So far I've been mostly learning about it and updating it so that it can use 1.7 [2]. I don't know whether I'll eventually get to something useful

configure.in: Look for flex

2005-06-15 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, The following change updates `README' and `configure.in' so that they mention flex. Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-06-16 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * configure.in: Look for `flex'. * README: Mention flex as a requirement. Index: README

Re: configure.in: Look for flex

2005-06-16 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, this shouldn't be an error. The dist includes the generated C code so you don't need lex in a normal build. (You need lex if you change the .l, and in a maintainer build maybe, so a configure check is good, but it shouldn't be an error.) Since

Block comments and `read-hash-extend'

2005-06-16 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, The patch below (1) fixes `#! ... !#' block comments and (2) allows to override them with `read-hash-extend'. (1) This example makes Guile 1.6 and the current Guile 1.7 hang (for some reason which I did not track down): guile #! this is a comment !# (+ 2 2) [wait

Re: Block comments and `read-hash-extend'

2005-08-19 Thread Ludovic Courtès
The patch below ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) also failed to live through the summer. ;-) Is it acceptable? Thanks, Ludovic. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Hi, The patch below (1) fixes `#! ... !#' block comments and (2) allows to override them with `read-hash-extend'. (1

Wide characters support

2005-08-24 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Are there any concrete plans for wide-character support in Guile? (I only found mentions of it in the list archive that dated back to several years) Thanks, Ludovic. ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org

[PATCH] Per-module reader

2005-09-13 Thread Ludovic Courtès
, Ludovic. ChangeLog entry for `libguile': 2005-10-13 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * load.c (scm_primitive_load): Switch to the current module's reader when the current module changes. * module.h (scm_module_index_reader): New macro. (SCM_MODULE_READER): New

Where is the maintainer?

2005-09-21 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, I keep receiving undelivered mail bounces from Marius' address at zagadka.de. Does anyone know what happened to him? Besides, is there someone who would take care of pending patches while he's off the net? :-) Thanks, Ludovic. ___

[PATCH] Test-suite update

2005-09-22 Thread Ludovic Courtès
a better solution is found. All the other tests pass on my PPC GNU/Linux box, some of them are unresolved though. Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-09-22 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Makefile.am (check-local): New target. * guile-test: Made executable as a stand-alone script

Re: [PATCH] Test-suite update

2005-09-23 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is, but from the top-level ./check-guile. Ah, I see. BTW, this script sets `GUILE_LOAD_PATH' to `${top_srcdir}/test-suite' only. Consequently, the `ice-9' modules (and in particular `boot-9.scm') are loaded from `${datadir}/guile/1.7', /not/ from

Re: [PATCH] Test-suite update

2005-09-23 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually I'm not sure I understand. Do you see the stack overflow only after applying your patch, or did it occur before the patch also on your system? I don't see a problem on Intel using current CVS. When running `elisp.test' untouched. Here's

Re: [PATCH] Test-suite update

2005-09-26 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can't reproduce this, but I wonder if the processing is genuinely on the border line of the allowed stack depth. Does it help if you add this to elisp.test just before the problem: (debug-set! stack (* (cadr (memq 'stack (debug-options))) 2))

Re: [PATCH] Test-suite update

2005-09-26 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did you try it (ie. ./check-guile)? I believe it uses ./pre-inst-guile, and that script sets the paths correctly to run uninstalled. This is true, I was wrong. ;-) Yep. I've done that for my charting package, you can set TESTS_ENVIRONMENT to

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader

2005-09-26 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, Could someone comment on this patch? (see [EMAIL PROTECTED]) It's actually quite trivial. :-) Thanks in advance, Ludovic. ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader

2005-09-27 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Neil, Thanks for this detailed analysis! Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is nice; but concerns about whether it fits with transformer are: - Transformer is specified with #:use-syntax followed by module name, which is a lot different from your syntax. I prefer your syntax,

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader

2005-09-27 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have doubts. Can you give more examples of when it might be used? Elisp syntax is probably not a good example, since elisp code wouldn't start with define-module. There are really two questions in your message. One is do we really need syntax

[PATCH] Source properties on arbitrary non-immediate values

2005-10-07 Thread Ludovic Courtès
) guile (set-source-properties! x '((a . 2))) ((a . 2)) guile (source-properties x) ((a . 2)) guile (define s a string) guile (set-source-properties! s '((line . 12))) ((line . 12)) guile (source-property s 'line) 12 Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-10-07 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [PATCH] Source properties on arbitrary non-immediate values

2005-10-10 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A symbol used in two places is the same object, so file/line attached by both occurrances will overwrite, or whatever. Ditto other uniques like keywords, and immediates like fixnums and chars. Symbols and strings

Re: [PATCH] Source properties on arbitrary non-immediate values

2005-10-11 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But cf currently just one empty string, (eq? ) = #t This also is made compulsory by R5RS. Ludovic. ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: [PATCH] Source properties on arbitrary non-immediate values

2005-10-11 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's fair enough. I guess the rationale is that the unit of evaluation (as presented in backtraces for example) is a list, so it is useful for source properties to be stored on lists when those are read. Sure. Yes, but why is that useful? Why

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader

2005-10-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If I'm understanding correctly, your argument rests on wanting to allow people to write a module like this: (define-module (shell utils) #:reader shell-reader #:use-module (shell reader) #:export (for)) for () { beg=$1

Re: [PATCH] Source properties on arbitrary non-immediate values

2005-10-17 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now in CVS: Ok, cool. Thanks, Ludovic. ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

2005-10-17 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And to get this marginal benefit we have to add a module option and some code which will slow down normal operation. Not noticeably perhaps, but it all adds up. Following your concern (I mean the performance concern, not the marginal benefit

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

2005-10-18 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Neil, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for taking my considerations into account and producing this update. My gut feel is that I do like this new patch better, but I'd like to think about it more. I also need to go back and finish my draft reply to your previous email -

Re: 1.6.8 release candidate 0 available for testing.

2005-10-20 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Greg Troxel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry you are quite right, I should have said GNU libc (is that used on other than Linux and HURD these days?). Sure it is: GNU/kFreeBSD[0] and even... GNU/NetBSD[1]. I know there has been significant work on the former, don't know about the latter.

[PATCH] SRFI-34, SRFI-60 and core bindings

2005-10-20 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, The patch below fixes SRFI-34 and SRFI-60 so that they don't override core bindings. The nice side-effect is that it suppresses annoying warning messages. Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-10-20 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * srfi/srfi-34.scm: Don't export `raise', replace it instead

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

2005-10-20 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomas Zerolo) writes: But don't we loose the possibility then to have ``embedded goo´´ (say, for example, something like a snippet of SQL in an otherwise Scheme file)? This would be, I think, one of the nifty uses for pluggable readers... [It looks like something

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

2005-10-21 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, indeed. Just one detail: I suspect that scm_frame_fluid(the_reader, SCM_BOOL_F); might be less surprising than scm_frame_fluid(the_reader, CURRENT_READER()); at the start of primitive-load. Given how Guile works already, I think it's

Re: [PATCH] `any' and `every' in `(oop goops util)'

2005-10-21 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When using (oop goops) ? I'm not sure (oop goops util) is meant to be used outside the goops implementation. And what difference does/would it make? (There's a non-tail recursive mapappend which could probably benefit from srfi-1 append-map too,

Re: [PATCH] SRFI-34, SRFI-60 and core bindings

2005-10-21 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't really want to silently replace the core bit-count, the srfi-60 one is completely different. It's pretty annoying to get a warning or have to use #:renamer, but I don't know a better way. `#:replace' _is_ this better way: it does _not_ override

[PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'

2005-10-21 Thread Ludovic Courtès
had with Kevin, it seems that we disagree on the use of `#:replace'. In particular, I used `(srfi srfi-19)' as an example of when to use `#:replace' and Kevin may disagree with that. But, well, let's debate this question. ;-) Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-10-21 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [PATCH] `any' and `every' in `(oop goops util)'

2005-10-24 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you're not supposed to use it then any warnings it provokes when you do aren't a big deal :). Right. ;-) Now that srfi-1 has a lot more C code it's probably worth using for performance. Yes, that's the point I was trying to make: this module

[PATCH] Marking weak alist vectors

2005-11-08 Thread Ludovic Courtès
-object-stats) Segmentation fault (core dumped) BTW, in `scm_init_properties ()', SCM_PROPERTIES_WHASH was not made permanent, which looks like an error. Thanks, Ludovic. libguile/ChangeLog 2005-11-08 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * gc-mark.c (scm_mark_all): Removed C++/C99-style

Re: [PATCH] Marking weak alist vectors

2005-11-09 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does your patch solve the problem that cyclical structures (values that point back to keys) should also be GC-ed? I guess you're talking about cyclical structures in doubly-weak alist vectors. If so, it apparently does since if both WEAK_VALUES and

Re: [PATCH] Reference leak in `iprin1 ()'

2005-11-14 Thread Ludovic Courtès
for you. Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-11-14 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * print.c (EXIT_NESTED_DATA): Before popping from the stack, reset the value at its top. This fixes a reference leak. (PUSH_REF): Perform `pstate-top++' after calling `PSTATE_STACK_SET

Re: I don't want to maintain this

2005-11-30 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Bruce, Bruce Korb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: *I* certainly cannot. Do you mean that you don't *want* to, or that this is not possible? The point is that writing Scheme code will always be easier than writing C code, and maintaining it will be even more easier. And I do not understand the

Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'

2005-12-07 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I made the following changes. OK? Looks perfect to me! But what about the rest of the patch, namely: 2005-11-07 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * srfi-19.scm (current-time): Replace it instead of exporting it. * srfi

Re: [PATCH] `any' and `every' in `(oop goops util)'

2005-12-07 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (oop goops util) is not meant to be used outside the goops implementation. I'd rather not touch it for cosmetic purposes only... :-) Sure, but why re-implement a subset of SRFI-1 in there, especially non-tail-recursive variants? Thanks, Ludovic.

Re: [PATCH] SRFI-34, SRFI-60 and core bindings

2005-12-07 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These two 'raise' funtions are very different: one raises a Unix signal, the other raises an exception. So I'd say the warning is OK. [...] The same is true for 'bit-count' as Kevin pointed out. I agree that these are way different functions, but I

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #3

2005-12-15 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What other *star* names do we have? I can only think of *features*. We don't have any other star name, but so far we did not export any fluid, only getters and setters (e.g., `current-module'). The most important thing is to be consistent with the

Re: [PATCH] Turning `scm_is_pair ()' into a macro

2005-12-15 Thread Ludovic Courtès
for this? Since `scm_is_pair ()' was already in 1.7.2, maybe it'd make sense to keep a non-inlined version of it. Maybe not (e.g., if we are to change library version numbers). BTW, below is a related fix that I forgot to post earlier. Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-12-15 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED

[PATCH] Accurate count of freed cells

2005-12-20 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, The patch below fixes the way freed cells are counted in `scm_i_sweep_card ()'. Basically, without this patch, FREE_COUNT is incremented regardless of whether the cell pointed to by SCMPTR was already free or not. Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-12-20 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED

[PATCH] GC code cleanup

2005-12-20 Thread Ludovic Courtès
!) the computation of the number of cells swept/collected in `scm_i_sweep_some_cards ()'. Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-12-20 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * libguile/gc-segment.c (scm_i_sweep_some_cards): Take two more arguments. Don't refer to SCM_GC_CELLS_COLLECTED

Re: GC improvements

2006-01-04 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Han-Wen, Thanks for your input! Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the easiest way is to modify scm_gc_for_newcell() so it directly passes to the scm_i_get_new_heap_segment (freelist, abort_on_error); case No, that won't have any impact because this very case is rarely

Re: [PATCH] Marking weak alist vectors, epilogue

2006-01-09 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi all, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Below is an improved version of the patch I originally sent. The goal of the original patch (and associated test case) was to ensure that an object associated to a weak key (resp. a weak value) is GC'd _after_ that key (resp. value

Re: [PATCH] Marking weak alist vectors, epilogue

2006-01-10 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: --- orig/libguile/properties.c +++ mod/libguile/properties.c @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ scm_init_properties () { scm_properties_whash = scm_make_weak_key_hash_table (SCM_UNDEFINED); + scm_properties_whash

Re: [PATCH] Marking weak alist vectors, epilogue

2006-01-10 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just looked into this. scm_properties_whash is actually OK, because it is defined like this in root.h: #define scm_properties_whash scm_sys_protects[10] and the elements of scm_sys_protects are handled specially in gc-mark.c. Ok, I had completely

Re: [PATCH] Improved `scm_from_locale_symbol ()' + `scm_take_locale_symbol ()'

2006-01-11 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: libguile: 2005-12-19 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * strings.c (scm_i_take_stringbufn): New. (scm_i_c_take_symbol): New. (scm_take_locale_stringn): Use `scm_i_take_stringbufn ()'. * strings.h

[PATCH] `try-module-autoload' and `current-reader'

2006-01-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
behavior. Thanks, Ludovic. 2006-01-12 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * boot-9.scm (try-module-autoload): When loading a non-compiled file, use `load-module' instead of `primitive-load'. Doing so will result in the use of the build-in reader when loading

Re: Backtrace and enhanced catch

2006-01-16 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Better late than never... ;-) Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Another (lesser) problem with lazy-catch and with-exception-handler is that they are always used in practice in a particular pattern. For lazy-catch the pattern is (catch tag (lambda () (lazy-catch tag

``Branch Prediction and Interpreter Speed''

2006-01-17 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Just in case you missed it: http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~jaffer/CNS/interpreter-branch . It might make sense in Guile to adopt `__builtin_expect ()' as shown there, especially in `SCM_ASSERT*'. Thanks, Ludovic. ___ Guile-devel mailing list

Re: [PATCH] Accurate count of freed cells

2006-01-18 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: 2005-12-20 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * gc-card.c (scm_i_sweep_card): Only increment FREE_COUNT for cells that were really freed. Can someone commit this and/or comment on it? Thanks, Ludovic

Re: [PATCH] Accurate count of freed cells

2006-01-19 Thread Ludovic Courtès
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes: See CVS. Thanks! Ludovic. ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: [PATCH] `try-module-autoload' and `current-reader'

2006-01-19 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Hi, In `boot-9.scm', `try-module-autoload' should be using `load-module', and not `primitive-load', when loading a non-compiled module. The reasons are (i) non-autoloaded modules are loaded using `load

Re: Backtrace and enhanced catch

2006-01-19 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Theoretically, perhaps. But if you accept the gist of my analysis, that would be to build something that has nice clear semantics (catch) on top of something that has rather awkward semantics (lazy-catch), which doesn't seem sensible. Yes, but

Re: [PATCH] `try-module-autoload' and `current-reader'

2006-01-23 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: process-use-modules - resolve-interface - resolve-module - try-load-module - try-module-autoload (Arguably try-module-autoload could be better named.) Sorry, I had missed that point. Also, the `with-fluids' framing is already provided by R4RS

[PATCH] Inlining `scm_is_pair ()'

2006-01-24 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Since, I consider compilers that don't support inlining unimportant, I'd happily live without the `inline.c' stuff. I.e., I'd put this in `pairs.h': static SCM_C_INLINE int scm_is_pair (...) With compilers not supporting inlining

Re: [PATCH] Improved `scm_from_locale_symbol ()' + `scm_take_locale_symbol ()'

2006-01-24 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes: I think it looks OK. If noone steps forward, I will integrate it. Thanks! Have you considered asking Marius for CVS write access? One might arguably consider it inadequate. Beside, as long as patches are reviewed in a reasonable amount of

Re: [PATCH] Improved `scm_from_locale_symbol ()' + `scm_take_locale_symbol ()'

2006-01-24 Thread Ludovic Courtès
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This second modification has a nice effect: it can significantly reduce the number of objects created at load-time. Unfortunately, Guile's built-in reader always produces

Re: [PATCH] Improved `scm_from_locale_symbol ()' + `scm_take_locale_symbol ()'

2006-01-24 Thread Ludovic Courtès
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes: Yes, -- FWIW, I warmly recommend darcs, which is much easier to use. I don't think there's such a huge difference, especially when looking at [0]. Additionally, most of the commands shown there now have easy-looking counterparts taken from Bazaar,

Re: [PATCH] Inlining `scm_is_pair ()'

2006-01-25 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Which is probably not really in line with gnu coding standards (standards.info end of Syntactic Conventions node). But I guess any application might do it. Certainly not the only thing that's not GCS-compatible in Guile... ;-) That was

Re: [PATCH] Improved `scm_from_locale_symbol ()' + `scm_take_locale_symbol ()'

2006-01-25 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, Ken Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for the politics, you may have noticed that GNU is a somewhat politically motivated project... :-) But I have no idea if the choice of arch is official, or just what some volunteers were willing to support; ask RMS if you want to know the

Re: [PATCH] `try-module-autoload' and `current-reader'

2006-01-27 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But that would still bring in a start-stack and so change backtraces, so I'd prefer not. Oh, right. I really think with-fluids is the way to go. If you agree, I'll make this change in CVS. Ok, let's go for it! ;-) Thanks, Ludovic.

Re: [PATCH] Inlining `scm_is_pair ()'

2006-01-27 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I doubt you'll ever get any feedback like that. Making something that takes advantage of gcc but does no harm in vanilla c89 or c99 is in a sense the best of both worlds. C99 defines `inline', so nothing wrong problem with that. As for C89, it would do

Re: [PATCH] GC code cleanup #2

2006-01-30 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: 2006-01-04 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * libguile/gc-segment.c (scm_i_sweep_some_cards): Take a SWEEP_STATS argument. Don't refer to SCM_GC_CELLS_COLLECTED and SCM_CELLS_ALLOCATED. If SEG-FIRST_TIME, let

[PATCH] Fix for `make-uniform-array'

2006-02-01 Thread Ludovic Courtès
'. What do you think? Thanks, Ludovic. [0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2006-01/msg00086.html 2006-01-01 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * deprecated.scm (make-uniform-array): Fill the returned vector with PROT. --- orig/ice-9/deprecated.scm +++ mod/ice-9

Re: doc libdir and C code modules

2006-02-06 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I added the words below to the manual as the last subsection in Dynamic Libraries, to encourage packages to use libdir. I don't want to re-open the can of worms about versioning and stuff, this is intended just to describe the present situation. Cool!

Re: [PATCH] GC code cleanup #2

2006-02-10 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes: Looks OK, but I can't apply - I get =20 at line endings once more. I don't understand exactly what's happening. Basically, if you copy/paste the patch from within your mail client or from the archive[0], that should be fine. (Remember to update

Re: Another load path idea

2006-02-10 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Neil, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Below is the patch that I propose for this. Please let me know if you have any comments. It looks nice to me. Little nitpicking: I'd personally prefer `$GUILE_CONFIG_DIRECTORY' rather than `$GUILE_CONF_DIR'. I'd personally like to have this

[Ludovic Courtès] Re: [PATCH] GC code cleanup #2

2006-02-13 Thread Ludovic Courtès
and below is a patch that does this. Could someone please review it and apply it if it's acceptable? Thanks, Ludovic. 2006-01-04 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * libguile/gc-segment.c (scm_i_sweep_some_cards): Take a SWEEP_STATS argument. Don't refer to SCM_GC_CELLS_COLLECTED

Re: Another load path idea

2006-02-13 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm, I'm inclined not to put this into 1.8, at least not in 1.8.0. I can't really put my finger on it, as I see nothing fundamental wrong with the patch, but I also don't see the immediate need for it. That is probably because I haven't followed

Re: Guile 1.7.91 has been released.

2006-02-14 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Bill Schottstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: filesys.c:860: error: `NAME_MAX' undeclared (first use in this function) GNU (aka. GNU/Hurd) may very well have the same problem. (arbitrary limitations like this or `PATH_MAX' are not supported[0]) Can somebody check this? Thanks, Ludovic.

Re: Guile 1.7.91 has been released.

2006-02-14 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are pleased to announce the release of Guile 1.7.91. This is a release candidate for Guile 1.8. It can be found here: BTW, maybe you should also announce it on [EMAIL PROTECTED]' (which is relayed as the `gnu.announce' newsgroup). Thanks, Ludovic.

Re: Guile 1.7.91 has been released.

2006-02-14 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If that's gcc 4 then it might be the same thing afflicting i386 under -O3, that ceval/deval end up using a lot of stack. Try increasing the stack limit, ie. the guile one, wherever the default for that hides in the sources ... Also, on PPC, I can

Re: [PATCH] Fixed `scm_i_take_stringbufn ()'

2006-02-15 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I made some memory leak checks for myself by demanding that (assoc-ref (gc-stats) 'bytes-malloced) was steady across some repetitions of a test. That's actually a different number though (is it?), but it should in theory be possible to exercise some of

Exposing `scm_i_mem2number ()'

2006-02-15 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, I think it'd be nice to export `scm_i_mem2number ()'. My initial plan was to just rename it `scm_c_string_to_number ()' and document it. However, due to the eventual support for various encodings, we'd rather need to have something like `scm_c_locale_string_to_number ()'. The problem is:

Re: [PATCH] Fix for `make-autoload-interface'

2006-03-07 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sound fair. Thanks, I checked it in. I took the liberty of changing the test file to modules.test, and I made it use the ice-9 q module, to avoid the warning from srfi-19 replacing `current-time'. Not sure I understand what you mean. Anyway, I'm

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

2006-03-08 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That bit sounds fair, I it in. I think the rest labours the point a little. Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Hopefully seeing init-thunk and init-form described is enough. I think the [EMAIL PROTECTED] across all new instances of

Re: Exposing `scm_i_mem2number ()'

2006-03-08 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: libguile/ 2006-02-16 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * numbers.c (scm_i_mem2number): Renamed to `scm_c_locale_string_to_number ()'. Updated callers. * numbers.h: Updated function declaration

Re: Branch management

2006-03-15 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Who said that HEAD was abandoned? Sorry, that was inappropriately worded. I was referring to this: [...] I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch only, on the assumption that we will do something later to copy those changes to CVS

Re: Exposing `scm_i_mem2number ()'

2006-03-16 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, About `scm_c_locale_string_to_number ()'... [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: While writing it, it occurred to me that R5RS does not make it clear whether `string-number' converts from a number's external representation or not. As discussed in [0], while R5RS does

Re: Exposing `scm_i_mem2number ()'

2006-03-20 Thread Ludovic Courtès
? ^ n for length not null-terminated Good point! Below is an updated patch. Thanks! Ludovic. libguile/ 2006-03-17 Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] * numbers.c (scm_i_mem2number): Renamed

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

2006-03-21 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, (See [0] for the beginning of this thread...) Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Then perhaps the example that follows is just too much, too trivial. Is it what you mean? Yes. (But fortunately I'm not the final arbiter, so if perhaps

Guile + Boehm GC

2006-03-21 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi all, Integration of Boehm's GC within Guile was discussed at length in the past, especially back in 2000. Apparently, Han-Wen even got to the point of having an preliminary implementation of Guile that uses it[0]. Unfortunately the URL mentioned there is no longer valid. Han-Wen: Could you

Re: Guile + Boehm GC

2006-03-21 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Han-Wen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes: it's here, http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen/public/guile/guile-boehm.gz note that this is a patch for the old GC code, before I took a stab at rewriting. The good news is that it looks quite simple! The main changes are located here

Re: Branch management

2006-03-28 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It wasn't really planned that way. We did it differently in 1.6 vs HEAD, where we applied patches to both branches simultaneously by hand, and we might switch to that mode once HEAD has suffifiently diverted from the 1.8 branch. Hmm, sorry for

Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64

2006-04-10 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Quanah Gibson-Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: guile 1.8 fails to compile for me on my x86_64 box. I saw some previous thread about guile 1.7.xx having this issue, and I was wondering if there's been a fix since the 1.8 release. It's a known problem with 1.8.0 that is being worked on

Re: 1.6.8 release candidate 1 available for testing.

2006-04-14 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please test. I only ran `make check' and it succeeds on `powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu'. Thanks, Ludovic. ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

2006-04-18 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did the dreaded merge. The 1.8 branch now has a tag Thanks, this is good news! ;-) Ludovic. ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Status of the Project Ideas page / Summer of Code

2006-04-25 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:17:17PM +0200, Martin Kuehl wrote: (I also read the Guile + Boehm GC thread[4], so I'll assume this is an open issue). Just to let you know: I've been working on this over the past weeks and I'm getting to something nice. Hopefully, I'll post a status summary

Re: SCM_DEFER_INTS in 1.6

2006-05-02 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm wondering if the right thing would be just to drop the SCM_DEFER_INTS from the guile-gtk generated code. (The code there may still want a mutex then, but that's a gtk/gdk matter, unrelated to what guile might or might not need.) I think what you

Re: Status of the Project Ideas page / Summer of Code

2006-05-02 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Martin Kuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Guile-VM also sounds neat, but I was neither able to compile the code from CVS head nor to fetch the revival code from Ludovics arch repo, which makes it even harder to devise a plan of action. Judging from the mail thread about its revival,

Re: New to the group...

2006-05-04 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Jason Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (define fact (lambda (n) (cond ((= n 1) 1) (else (* n (fact (- n 1))) guile (fact 69) 171122452428141311372468338881272839092270544893520369393648040923257279754140647424000 guile (fact 70) ERROR: Stack

Re: gcc 2.95 inline scm_is_pair workaround

2006-05-22 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should we still support GCC 2.95? If it's not too costly (in terms of necessary workarounds), perhaps we should. Some people argue that GCC 2.95 is still very useful notably because it's much faster that newer GCCs (and that will certainly always

Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks

2006-05-31 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, Some time ago, I started porting Guile to Boehm GC, mostly in order to see whether this was feasible without loss of functionality and while remaining as compatible as possible with the current Guile. The good news is that I got to a working, almost as feature-full, and mostly-compatible,

Re: Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks

2006-06-01 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes: Boehm is generational, AFAIK. Virtually everyone uses BGC. GCJ, MzScheme, BigLoog, GNU Obj-C, etc. Yeah, and it's actively maintained and actively used. The mailing list is active as well and Hans Boehm has been very helpful answering my

Re: Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks

2006-06-01 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fascinating! Assuming we can resolve the details you have listed, what are the other high-level pros/cons, apart from performance? Does this mean we would discard all Guile's own GC code? Also, is Boehm GC as sophisticated as the generational GC

Re: Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks

2006-06-01 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes: The per object GC stats are a hack of mine, and although I would be sad to see it go (it makes debugging memory leaks easier), I think getting BGC is worth it. I don't see the point of the general GC stats. I think I've never ever used it.

Re: Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks

2006-06-01 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Mikael Djurfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yet, as long as the current GC is more efficient (as measured by performance tests), there is no reason to switch, right? Well, it's still unclear whether the current GC is more efficient, and how much more if it is. Furthermore, the GBGC code

Re: Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks

2006-06-01 Thread Ludovic Courtès
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Also, when discussing performance, one has to keep in mind that it is very unlikely that anybody will ever improve the performance of Guile's GC (I did try, had to gave, and got motivated by BGC ;-)). This should read

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >