[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64
From: |
Andy Wingo |
Subject: |
Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64 |
Date: |
Tue, 09 May 2006 15:23:45 +0200 |
(Why am I not getting mails to the list? Is mailman being "smart", or
the mailing lists slow? Anyway, replying to all..)
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 07:49 +0100, Neil Jerram wrote:
> Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
> > On 64-bit machines, a cell is 16 bytes, and that means that a
> > word with "lower three bits zero" can still be invalid because it
> > points into the middle of a cell.
Sounds plausible :)
> That's great, but I believe there's one detail still to be explained:
> why is it a problem with GCC 4 but not with GCC 3?
I experienced problems with gcc3 as well, 3.3 at least, under some
circumstances. I suspect this very much depends on what values the
compiler decides to put on the stack, which depends on your CFLAGS.
Speaking of which, a -g compile on PPC uses quite a lot of stack -- I
had to up the default limit in order to get anything to work (for
example, compiling psyntax). That would be another issue though...
Regards,
--
Andy Wingo
http://wingolog.org/
- Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64, Miroslav Lichvar, 2006/05/05
- Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64, Miroslav Lichvar, 2006/05/06
- Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64, Marius Vollmer, 2006/05/07
- Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64, Andy Wingo, 2006/05/08
- Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64, Marius Vollmer, 2006/05/08
- Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64, Neil Jerram, 2006/05/09
- Re: guile 1.8 and x86_64,
Andy Wingo <=
- Default stack limit, Marius Vollmer, 2006/05/09
- Re: Default stack limit, Andy Wingo, 2006/05/10
- Re: Default stack limit, Kevin Ryde, 2006/05/10