Re: compiling 1.8.0

[Paul Emsley]

On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 11:08 +0200, Claes Wallin wrote:
> Paul Emsley wrote:
> > Dear Guile users, 
> > 
> > I have a problem compiling/running 1.8.0:
> > 
> > $ ./configure --prefix=$pfx
> > $ make
> > $ make install
> > $ cd $pfx/bin
> > �$ ./guile
> > Backtrace:
> > In unknown file:
> >      ...
> >    ?: 123  [list apply ...
> >    ?: 124*  [list lambda (syntmp-dummy-3 syntmp-name-4 syntmp-rules-5) ...
> >    ?: 125*   [syntmp-chi-151 #(syntax-object # #) (# # # # ...) ...
> >    ?: 126*    [syntmp-make-binding-wrap-132 (# # #) ("i" "i" "i") (())]
> >    ?: 127     (if (null? syntmp-ids-949) syntmp-w-951 ...)
> >    ?: 128     [cons () ...
> >    ?: 129*     [cons ...
> >    ?: 130*      (let* ((syntmp-labelvec-952 #)) (let* (#) (let # #)))
> >    ?: 131       (let* ((syntmp-n-953 #)) (let (# #) (begin # #)))
> >           ...
> >    ?: 132       (begin # #)
> >    ?: 133*      [syntmp-f-956 (# # #) 0]
> >    ?: 134       (if (not #) (call-with-values # #))
> >           ...
> >    ?: 135       [call-with-values #<procedure #f ()> #<procedure #f #>]
> >    ?: 136       (@call-with-values (producer consumer))
> >    ?: 137*      [#<procedure #f ()>]
> >    ?: 138*      [syntmp-id-sym-name&marks-116 #(syntax-object dummy #) (())]
> >    ?: 139       (if (syntmp-syntax-object?-101 syntmp-x-980) (values # #) 
> > ...)
> >    ?: 140*      [syntmp-syntax-object?-101 #(syntax-object dummy (# # # 
> > shift .. .))]
> >    ?: 141       (and (vector? syntmp-x-1008) (= (vector-length 
> > syntmp-x-1008) 3)  ...)
> >    ?: 142*      (vector? syntmp-x-1008)
> > 
> > <unnamed port>: In expression (vector? syntmp-x-1008):
> > <unnamed port>: Stack overflow
> > 
> > This happens on all the computers I've tried to compile 1.8.0 on.
> > Can you help?
> 
> Like someone pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago on another list,
> compiling with optimizations is necessary for guile to work correctly. So:
> 
> $ ./configure --prefix=$pfx CFLAGS=-O2
> 
> That should do it.
> 
> Is this documented somewhere? If not, shouldn't it be? And if it is,
> shouldn't it be documented more prominently, like in INSTALL? Or, since
> it's a requirement for guile working correctly, could it even be a
> standard CFLAGS in configure?

Hi Claes, 

Yes indeed - that was the fix.  Thanks!
For the record it was compiling with default flags (including -g) that
was the problem. -O and -O2 works.

I echo your comments about documentation.

Cheers, 

Paul.

now off to play with threads...