[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU Guile 3.0.9rc1 available for testing!

From: Greg Troxel
Subject: Re: GNU Guile 3.0.9rc1 available for testing!
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 20:44:03 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (berkeley-unix)

Ludovic Courtès <> writes:

> So something like the patch below?
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
> diff --git a/libguile/posix.c b/libguile/posix.c
> index 74c743119..0b1fe2637 100644
> --- a/libguile/posix.c
> +++ b/libguile/posix.c
> @@ -105,8 +105,8 @@
>  # else
>  #  define W_EXITCODE(ret, sig)   ((ret) << 8 | (sig))
>  # endif
> -#endif
>  verify (WEXITSTATUS (W_EXITCODE (127, 0)) == 127);
> +#endif
>  #include <signal.h>

I see you pushed that to master and I have done a full build from master
with the pkgsrc JIT workarounds.  It mostly worked and I got this, which
may be because I purged not-needed packages (but the guile build didn't
complain at configure or check time, like it did for missing gperf which
I put back).  Or maybe I just haven't gotten this far with 3.0.9-ish.

    CC       test_foreign_object_c-test-foreign-object-c.o
    CCLD     test-foreign-object-c
  ld: ../../libguile/.libs/ warning: warning: tmpnam() possibly 
used unsafely, use mkstemp() or mkdtemp()
  ld: /tmp//ccOnwVqC.ltrans0.ltrans.o: in function `finalizer':
 undefined reference to `rpl_free'

LTO seems enabled, but I see ranlib complaints in the build log.  I know
LTO is not new in this micro.  Maybe I'm trailing edge but it seems
slightly like living dangerously if not known to be ok -- but
--disable-lto is easy enough so no worries.

I kicked off a new build with --disable-lto, and that succeeded.  Tests
are not entirely ok, but that's not a regression.  I used the distfile
as a faux release to build guile pkgsrc from, and that built fine and

There are some issues for me to work through eventually, but for 3.0.9 I
have arrived at being ok with you releasing the current state of git
master (3 commits past rc1) as not having anything I can claim is a
regression and not anything I can't work around as before.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]