Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] x86-64 assembler problem

[Matt Birkholz]

> From: Taylor R Campbell <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:05:39 +0000
> 
>    Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:15:22 -0700
>    From: address@hidden (Matt Birkholz)
> 
>    > From: Taylor R Campbell <address@hidden>
>    > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:01:33 +0000
>    > 
>    > [...] How did you trigger this?  Just by building the current
>    > state of <git://birkholz.chandler.az.us/~matt/mit-scheme.git>?
> 
>    No, you will want to remove the "#| Kludge:" comment to break it.
> 
> Yes, try splitting that definition up like this: [...]

Thanks.

I had just gotten the stack trace to say something besides ";compiled
code" when I sent my query.  Seeing a procedure named block-offset
waiting in the continuation definitely throws suspicion away from
constant folding/inlining.  Presumably I was close to the limit on
i386 too, the difference due to the size of the inlined constants.

I think I will list->vector the c-enum-constant-values at
compile-time, and punt the whole ugly list...