Re: GNU Guile 2.1.5 released (beta)

[Matt Wette]

OK.  This is gonna be hard to trace down.

I am on a Mac running Sierra, 10.12.2.  At work I am running 10.9 I believe, and I see the same behavior.

If I compile with gcc 6.2 or gcc4.9, but no extra flags besides —prefix, I get the following failure:

FAIL: numbers.test: string->number: valid complex number strings

and trace this down to 

meta/guile -c '(display (eqv? (imag-part (string->number "address@hidden")) -0.0))' => #f

If I add “-g” to CFLAGS & LDFLAGS, or just compile with CFLAGS=-O0 I get

FAIL: mutex-ownership: mutex with owner not retained (bug #27450)

Note the following modification from the above guardian test:

(define gg #f)

(let ((g (make-guardian)))

  (g (let ((m (make-mutex)))

       (lock-mutex m)

       (if (mutex? m) #t (display "0: not mutex\n"))

       m))

  

  (set! gg g)

  (simple-format #t "1: g=~S\n" g)

  

  ;; Avoid false references to M on the stack.

  (clear-stale-stack-references)

  

  (gc) (gc)

  (simple-format #t "2: g=~S\n" g)

  (let ((m (g)))

    (simple-format #t "3: g=~S\n" g)

    (and (mutex? m)

(eq? (mutex-owner m) (current-thread)))))

(gc)(gc)

(simple-format #t "9:gg=~S\n" gg)

The above generates

1: g=#<guardian 10228dba0 (reachable: 1 unreachable: 0)>

2: g=#<guardian 10228dba0 (reachable: 1 unreachable: 0)>

3: g=#<guardian 10228dba0 (reachable: 1 unreachable: 0)>

9:gg=#<guardian 10228dba0 (reachable: 0 unreachable: 1)>

I believe both 2 and 3 would ordinarily indicate the mutex unreachable.

Any ideas on how to chase this down?

Matt