[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Matt Birkholz
Subject: Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] x86-64 assembler problem
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:33:45 -0700

> 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://>?
>    No, you will want to remove the "#| Kludge:" comment to break it.
> Yes, try splitting that definition up like this: [...]


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...

reply via email to

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