[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?
From: |
Ricardo Wurmus |
Subject: |
bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC? |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:20:58 +0100 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.3.1 |
Hi again,
previously I wrote:
> The “guile-awesome” package finished compiling (after about 46 minutes).
> I’m now testing “guix pull” with a version of Guix that uses
> “guile-awesome”.
I’m sure I’m doing something wrong (see below for guesses). Here’s what
I get:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
./pre-inst-env guix pull
loading... 26.0% of 645 filesrandom seed for tests: 1509382171
compiling... 18.9% of 645 filesIn thread:
ERROR: In procedure return: return used outside of 'with-monad'Error while
printing exception.
compiling... 54.7% of 645 files^C
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I modified build-self.scm to use the modified Guile:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
diff --git a/build-aux/build-self.scm b/build-aux/build-self.scm
index ed8ff5f..9af6504 100644
--- a/build-aux/build-self.scm
+++ b/build-aux/build-self.scm
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ running Guile."
(package->derivation (cond-expand
(guile-2.2
(canonical-package
- (specification->package "address@hidden")))
+ (specification->package "address@hidden")))
(else
(canonical-package
(specification->package "address@hidden"))))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I also confirmed that the Guile process that is spawned as “bin/guile
--no-auto-compile /home/rwurmus/guix/scripts/guix pull” is indeed the
modified Guile, but I noticed that it spawns yet another Guile process
to load and compile Guix.
I guess that comes from the daemon? If that’s the case I can’t really
test this on this big server, because the daemon is currently in use, so
I can’t just reconfigure it to use the modified Guile.
When compiling Guix from source with “make -j 32” using that version of
Guile I got a segfault.
--
Ricardo
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Christopher Allan Webber, 2017/10/24
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/10/25
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/10/26
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/10/26
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/10/26
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/10/27
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/10/28
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/10/30
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/10/30
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?,
Ricardo Wurmus <=
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/10/30
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Andy Wingo, 2017/10/30
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/10/30
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Andy Wingo, 2017/10/31
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/10/31
- bug#19180: Weak tables harmful to GC?, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/10/26