<thomassgn>I need some way of using inotify or similar, are there any libraries for this? or where can I search for modules? my searches turn up very little <thomassgn>dsmith: nice, thanks. Does guile have some sort of 'package' db or standard way of installing modules/libraries? <dsmith>thomassgn: It's been attempted several times. I think the current vogue is to use guix. <thomassgn>dsmith: allright, that's the reason I'm investing in guile now, am slowly migrating to guixsd :) <dsmith>I really should look into guix. But old habits die hard. <davexunit>ACTION unboxed f64 comparison patch sent to guile-devel <sneek>Welcome back lloda, you have 1 message. <sneek>lloda, efraim says: should we switch gcc-boot0 from gmp-6.0.0a to gmp-6.1.0? <lloda>efraim: I can't tell what this is about :-/ maybe you mean it for someone else? <wingo>lloda: first patch LGTM, in the future please put full sentences in comments starting with capital letter and finishing with period; also scm_fluid_ref() only *might* take the alloc lock fwiw but that's not an important correction to make <wingo>scm_fluid_ref might have taken the alloc lock in the past too i think but it was much less likely <wingo>lloda: second one probably is not the right thing, can you add a test instead and i can fix the compiler or disable the pass that caused it to start failing? <wingo>compiler bugs are important to fix because you are lucky when you find them :) <lloda>there's a test included, I can commit the test only or just wait <wingo>well, let me take a look at it <efraim>lloda: sorry it was supposed to go to civodul <wingo>lloda: the test passes for me without patches <wingo>lloda: the test is simple (string=? "10." (format #f "~2f" 9.9)) right? <lloda>daviid confirmed it a while back :-| <wingo>lloda: you are on x86-64 i assume <wingo>what if you revert your patch, does the bug still reproduce for you <lloda>scheme@(guile-user)> (string=? "10." (format #f "~2f" 9.9)) <lloda>ice-9/format.scm:1525:37: In procedure format:fn-round: <lloda>ice-9/format.scm:1525:37: In procedure string-ref: Value out of range: 18446744073709551615 <wingo>ah maybe i need to recompile format.scm <lloda>the error went away if I did (pk (- i 1)) instead of (- i 1) in the 1st (do ...) clause. There are lots of globals, when I tried to make it fail outside, I could not. <wingo>the function is a bit too big to analyze the bytecode, i need to pare it down <lloda>is there a way to throw away the $nn arguments in the repl, to free memory? <taylan>lloda: found it: (info "(guile) Value History") <taylan>(I knew it exists but had forgotten how) <lloda>oh thank you! you saved my session <dsmith>{appropriate time} Greetings, Guilers <wingo>lloda: i know more or less what the problem is now, tx for the report <davexunit>wingo: good morning. I sent the f64 comparison patch to guile-devel. <davexunit>I forgot to add docs the first time, so check out the second patch in the thread for that. <davexunit>wingo: I couldn't find a place where I would add tests for this stuff. let me know if there is something I should do in that regard. <davexunit>oh, and FSF already has my copyright assignment papers for guile so no blocker there. ;) <sneek>civodul, you have 1 message. <sneek>civodul, ng0 says: adding to my last sentence, yes I will try to get to some constructive solutions if possible. <civodul>the patch looks reasonable and we can always do further testing <wingo>ACTION does not want to block it :) <janneke>civodul: yay...note that it now looks almost deterministic, we're not there yet <civodul>janneke: yeah i've noticed your comments <civodul>we'll fix the other issues afterwards, one thing at a time :-) <civodul>i guess each one of us was thinking that someone else would do it ;-) <lloda>wingo: thank you for looking into it, it did cause me a bit of trouble <civodul>wingo: the patch adds a field to the module record type; could that be a problem? <wingo>civodul: for 2.0? i think not, if the field was added at the end <wingo>civodul: will you port the patch to 2.2 as well please? :-) <civodul>yeah for 2.0, and yes it's added at the end <civodul>mark_weaver: you explicitly wrote that "you're not confident in its correctness", but you haven't replied to janneke etc. <civodul>it seems correct to me and i'd like to leave you as the author <civodul>please speak up if you don't want to! <paroneayea>looks like I might have fixed the bug I mentioned with the "fretting to death" stack limit issue in 8sync <paroneayea>I removed the sleep timer on the character's loop and it's been running for 5 minutes <paroneayea>well nothing that doesn't get GC'ed back away that is :) ***profan is now known as profernicus
***profernicus is now known as profan
<amz3>I am the only one to be unable to call (setlocale LC_ALL "") on guile 2.1.4 ? <amz3>What's the difference between #vu8 and #u8? <amz3>I have a program that returns #u8 under guile 2.0.11 and #vu8 in guile 2.1.4 <amz3>oops! forget the last question I was relying on bug on my side <amz3>still what's the difference between #vu8 and #u8? <amz3>both return #t with bytevector? from (rnrs bytevectors) <ft>The "Array Syntax" part of the manual states that #u8() is a uniform array and "In addition, bytevectors are also arrays, but use a different syntax". Which sounds like they are pretty much the same.