[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: guile-2.0 and debian
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:32:10 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Antonio Ospite <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:07:08 +0100
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Antonio Ospite <address@hidden> writes:
>> > For instance if David, or someone else, could confirm that patch 0005
>> > [1] actually makes sense I would propose it for inclusion in lilypond.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >    Antonio
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> [Forehead-slap] Looks like the right thing to do but it seems like
>> moving it the scm_dynwind_end call before anything else is done might be
>> better since non_fatal_error might cause a fatal error (depending on
>> command line options) and I am not completely sure that a non-local C++
>> exit will properly count as a non-local Scheme exit according to
>> scm_dynwind_end's documentation.
>> It's a non-brainer so I might just push a fix without further notice if
>> it's ok with you that I'm stealing your credit in that manner.  If it's
>> not ok, I'll get your patch and commit message and do that change with
>> you as author.
> Sure, if your change is different and better than mine, go a head and
> take credit, maybe mention my name in the commit message, with something
> like a Thanks-to or a Reported-by tag, but it's not a big deal.

Turns out that the commit message is a lot more work than the patch so
I'll just keep yours around.

> After this was fixed I noticed that I was getting the warnings in a
> different order compared to what was
> expecting, see patch 0006[1]. I am not sure if this happens with
> guile-1.8 too, so if you got the chance take a look at that too,
> please.

I get the same warning here.  It's due to the previous warning's lack of
proper cleanup: if you remove the first expect-warning and its trigger,
this will also occur with current LilyPond.

So I better change this in the same patch.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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