gmane.lisp.guile.devel

Re: Do you recognize these modules?

Thien-Thi Nguyen — 2012-05-25T17:02:15

() Andy Wingo <wingo< at >pobox.com>
() Fri, 25 May 2012 14:48:19 +0200

   You interested in submitting this as a patches to Guile?

Not really.  The documentation is necessarily Guile 1.4-specific,
requiring reconciliation in both content and style for best 1.8+
fit.  I think Noah Lavine is in a better position to do that work,
so i defer to his initiative, including commit strategy.

(Fancy-sounding but fundamentally lame excuse ends here.)

Re: Using labels-as-values on MacOS X

Hans Aberg — 2012-05-25T16:32:23


$ /usr/bin/gcc --version
i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc. build 5658) (LLVM build 2336.9.00)
$ ls -l /usr/bin/gcc
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  12 Mar 23 21:20 /usr/bin/gcc -> llvm-gcc-4.2

It comes with Xcode 4.3.2 (on Mac OS X 10.7.4). LLVM was originally intended as a backend for GCC, and this a variation of that compiler.

There is also
$ ls -l /usr/bin/cc
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  5 Mar 23 21:19 /usr/bin/cc -> clang
$ clang --version
Apple clang version 3.1 (tags/Apple/clang-318.0.58) (based on LLVM 3.1svn)

In addition, I have
$ which gcc
/usr/local/bin/gcc
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.7.0

It was compiled using the LLVM-GCC above.

Hans

Re: Build failures - compiling TeXmacs under guile 2.0.5

Ludovic Courtès — 2012-05-25T15:51:04

Hi!

Jan Synacek <jsynacek< at >redhat.com> skribis:


[...]


Indeed, scm_str2string expects a ‘const char *’, not an ‘SCM’.

But what is the definition of ‘scm_scm2str’?  It must be in TeXmacs.


[...]


Yes, FN should be defined like this:

  typedef scm_t_subr FN;

or:

  #define FN scm_t_subr

Can you check whether that solves the problem?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Using labels-as-values on MacOS X

Ludovic Courtès — 2012-05-25T15:31:11

Hi,

Ken Raeburn <raeburn< at >raeburn.org> skribis:


Damn, what compiler is this?  It’s not the old GCC 4.2 fork?  Is it
Clang?  GCC with DragonEgg?


Weird, would be good to see what happens.

The two options for VM dispatching are:


Could you look at the code generated by that compiler for this file?

With GCC 4.6.2 at -O2, the dispatch with labels-as-values looks like this:

mov-4(%rbx), %eax
movqjump_table.2080(,%rax,8), %rax
addq$4, %rbx
jmp*%rax

In the other case it’s a series of comparisons like this:

cmpl$2, %eax
jne.L14
movl$.LC2, %edi
callputs
movl(%rbx), %eax
addq$4, %rbx
cmpl$1, %eax
jne.L16
movl$.LC1, %edi
callputs
jmp.L14


Agreed, but OTOH #ifdef __LLVM__ isn’t future-proof.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Removing ‘GC_PTR’

Ludovic Courtès — 2012-05-25T14:56:00

Hi,

Ken Raeburn <raeburn< at >raeburn.org> skribis:


I agree we can remove it: in stable-2.0 it’s no longer used since commit
0f6dd25023da59bcfefb080c66a2d2650d955ffa.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Do you recognize these modules?

Andy Wingo — 2012-05-25T12:48:19


Super!

You interested in submitting this as a patches to Guile?  If you are
familiar with git, you would just commit them, then use git-format-patch
to attach them to a mail.  It's the easiest way to get review :)

Regards,

Andy

Re: Do you recognize these modules?

Thien-Thi Nguyen — 2012-05-25T08:53:37

() Andy Wingo <wingo< at >pobox.com>
() Tue, 15 May 2012 22:14:31 +0200

   2.0 is the current stable branch, so any changes should go
   there first.  If it's a build fix or some other fix related to
   forward-compatibility with 2.0, it can go on 1.8 as well.  We
   should avoid adding interfaces to 1.8, though.

   When in doubt, it's best (and much appreciated) to mail the list.
   If no one responds in a few days, go ahead and push it of course.

   Does that sound sensible to you?

Yes, thanks for explaining.

To avoid mishap (for this particular task), i've published a tarball:

  http://www.gnuvola.org/software/guile/doc-xfer-2012-05-25.tar.xz

It contains documentation for 17 ice-9 modules, plus some macros
(see README).  I hope it can be useful for Guile 1.8+ maintenance.

Re: Build failures - compiling TeXmacs under guile 2.0.5

Jan Synacek — 2012-05-24T12:57:56

Sorry for such late response, I gave it up after a while:) But..
One more try on this:

$ make

  <snip>

  Guile/Glue/glue.cpp:233:31: error: cannot convert ‘SCM {aka
  scm_unused_struct*}’ to ‘const char*’ for argument ‘1’ to ‘scm_unused_struct*
  scm_str2string(const char*)’

  <snip>

  Guile/Glue/glue.cpp:1267:46: error: invalid conversion from ‘FN {aka
  scm_unused_struct* (*)()}’ to ‘scm_t_subr {aka void*}’ [-fpermissive]

  <snip>

Again, tons of errors like those two above, and I expect there will be more
like that.

glue.cpp:233 looks like this:
    char* _r= scm_scm2str (s, &len_r); // my comment - s is declared as SCM

glue.cpp:1267:
   scm_new_procedure ("tree?", (FN) treeP, 1, 0, 0);

I'm aware that C++ is pretty strict about casting. Is there any way I could fix
those? I guess that if it is possible to bend g++ to allow me to recast all
those, I could use macros somehow.

Thanks,

Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0,updated. v2.0.5-158-g15bb587

Ludovic Courtès — 2012-05-23T12:42:51

Hi!

"Andy Wingo" <wingo< at >pobox.com> skribis:


Nice.  Could you add tests?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Error in wip-rtl

Andy Wingo — 2012-05-23T07:10:16


Not sure; I assume you tried a clean build?

Anyway I have some updates so I would hold off building until later
today.

Cheers,

Andy

Re: syntax parse link

Alex Shinn — 2012-05-23T02:28:36

This is somewhat debatable:

  http://www.grammarunderground.com/an-historic-vs-a-historic.html

Google finds about 7:1 pages using "a hygienic" vs "an hygienic".

Error in wip-rtl

Noah Lavine — 2012-05-23T02:04:39

Hello,

I tried to build the latest wip-rtl today, and hit an error that I
don't know how to debug. First, when the build gets to "GEN
guile-procedures.texi", I get a segmentation fault.

I tried to debug it by doing meta/gdb-uninstalled-guile. When I did
that, Guile made it to a command prompt, but when I try to evaluate
any sort of expression, even #t, I got "ERROR: unbound variable:
compile".

What might make that happen?

Thanks,
Noah

Re: patch to guile to allow c-code closure interaction for logicprogramming

Stefan Israelsson Tampe — 2012-05-22T19:13:06

I use this method to interop c-code compiled logic programs o guile,

note: I saw that there have been restructuring the call logic somewhat
meaning that
the dispatching to the logic c code get's a little more expensive and a
little more different then presented below bot hey we can fix my code later
on!

Assume that we add a check for a data-structure representing a c code
closure that is located last in the chain of tests for special callable
structures just to be defensive to other
systems who want to call!

this check in call, tail-call and mv-call can then point to the different
goto labels in the supplied file (let's forget about mv-call for now) Then
the execution of the c-code will be done by starting a trampoline. This
trampoline assumes c functions that takes an argument representing the call
stack, the number of arguments, a pointer to the list of closure variables
and optionally a pointer representing the end of the stack. the function
assumes it return a integer. If it is possitive then there ha

Re: a few proposed patches

Ken Raeburn — 2012-05-22T16:54:40

Hm.  Okay.  Most of the advice I remembered seeing was to get the latest alpha of 7.something (didn't remember if that was 7.1 or 7.2).  But I thought I also ran across bug fixes mentioned as having been added since the alphas, that fixed bugs found running Guile.  Maybe it was since 7.1 alphas, I don't recall how old the report was, nor whether it was about stable-2.0 or master.  But supporting 6.8 seems kind of pointless, if we need 7.1 to function properly.  And it looks to me like 7.2alpha2, at least, should pass the version test I used, and its timestamp is back in 2009.


It is on master where I was seeing sporadic failures during the build while using 7.1, which disappeared around the time I switched to 7.2.


I thought about looking to see if there was some additional version identifier (GC_ALPHA_VERSION?) that would distinguish versions that did define GC_PTR from those that don't, but since GC_PTR just looked like a holdover in need of deletion, it didn't seem worth it.

Is GC_PTR defined as void*

Re: a few proposed patches

Ken Raeburn — 2012-05-22T16:51:31

No, I found the struct-size one by inspection, and ran into the locking one trying to test it. :-)

The build hung with consistent stack traces while running Guile, always trying to lock that mutex.  I suspected a double-lock attempt or a missing unlock, so I instrumented the lock functions to report what they were doing, with line numbers, and noticed the excess unlocks.


That's good news.

Ken

Re: syntax parse link

Stefan Israelsson Tampe — 2012-05-22T16:41:03

Ok, those issues are now fixed!

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo< at >gnu.org> wrote:

Re: syntax parse link

Ludovic Courtès — 2012-05-22T16:18:16

Hi!

Thanks!  There are a few typos:

 guile -> Guile
 racket -> Racket
 an hygienic -> a hygienic
 recomending -> recommending

Also, could you move it above, to keep the list alphabetically sorted?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: a few proposed patches

Andy Wingo — 2012-05-22T08:21:29


By that GCC, I meant; which is really an old fork Apple made of GNU GCC.

Andy

Re: a few proposed patches

Andy Wingo — 2012-05-22T08:17:27

Hi Ken,

On Mon 21 May 2012 07:45, Ken Raeburn <raeburn< at >raeburn.org> writes:


These are related.  Until recently, the intention was that 7.1 was the
minimum version, though we supported compilation against 6.8, which is
the version in Debian stable.  As it is, the final 7.2 release was only
made a couple weeks ago, which is too new, at least for stable-2.0.

On the other hand, requiring 7.2 in master would probably be
acceptable.  Input from others is appreciated.

I think at least for stable-2.0, some more targeted fix can be
appropriate.


This is a very old and buggy compiler, AFAIK.  Your system might also
contain clang, which is probably better, if it works.


Well, in this case it is worth making a change.  But can you try with
newer clang to see what it does?  I'd hate to turn it off for new
compilers as well.


I don't recall what the end result was, but it could have been a bug in
a libffi compiled by that libgc.

Related:

  http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.lisp.guile.bugs&article=5

Re: a few proposed patches

Andy Wingo — 2012-05-22T07:54:13


Thank you very much for these, especially the locking one!  How did you
catch the locking bug, just by code inspection?  It could be at the root
of a tricky bug that has been following me around since that code was
introduced...

Thankfully those bugs do not apply to the stable branch.

Regards,

Andy

Re: how to implement mutual recursive parsers in syntax-parse

Stefan Israelsson Tampe — 2012-05-21T09:33:30

Jolly nice, this is perfect!
Den 21 maj 2012 10:59 skrev "Andy Wingo" <wingo< at >pobox.com>: