dsm...@roadrunner.com wrote:
> Ok! now getting past the "make -j" issue, but I'm still getting a segfault.
And now commit e6461cf1b2b63e3ec9a2867731742db552b61b71 has gotten past the
segfault.
Wooo!
-Dale
Hi :)
On Mon 02 Jul 2018 11:28, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo skribis:
>
>> My current plan is that the frame overhead will still be two slots: the
>> saved previous FP, and the saved return address. Right now the return
>> address is always a bytecode address. In the
Hello!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> The news is that the VM has been completely converted over to call out
> to the Guile runtime through an "intrinsics" vtable. For some
> intrinsics, the compiler will emit specialized call-intrinsic opcodes.
> (There's one of these opcodes for each intrinsic
Ok! now getting past the "make -j" issue, but I'm still getting a segfault.
Here is a backtrace from the core dump.
Line 25:
#25 0x7efeb518b09f in scm_error (key=0x563599bbb120, subr=subr@entry=0x0,
message=message@entry=0x7efeb521c0cd "Unbound variable: ~S",
args=0x563599f8f260,
Greetings Andy!
Andy Wingo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just wanted to give an update on Guile 3 developments. Last note was
> here:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2018-04/msg4.html
>
> The news is that the VM has been completely converted over to call out
> to the Guile
Hi,
Just wanted to give an update on Guile 3 developments. Last note was
here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2018-04/msg4.html
The news is that the VM has been completely converted over to call out
to the Guile runtime through an "intrinsics" vtable. For some
