From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Feb 16 11:06:10 2019 Received: (at 34427) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Feb 2019 16:06:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50462 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gv2Ti-0003Ai-JZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 11:06:10 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]:57508) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gv2Tg-0003AX-Pw; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 11:06:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264B010662; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 17:06:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aquilenet.fr Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aeMYXqRzu2ao; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 17:06:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from ribbon (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FA41DBF4; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 17:06:06 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: [bug#34453] [PATCH] build guile-static with guile-2.0 References: <20190212091740.GB3284@macbook41> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 17:06:05 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20190212091740.GB3284@macbook41> (Efraim Flashner's message of "Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:17:40 +0200") Message-ID: <87mumvhg5u.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 34427 Cc: 34453@debbugs.gnu.org, 34427@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) Hi Efraim, Efraim Flashner skribis: > When experimenting I found that using guile@2.0 as a base for > guile-static, the resulting guile-static didn't segfault on the target > architecture. As discussed in , I would rather fix the segfault in 2.2 than move back to 2.0 and effectively delay the problem. Ludo=E2=80=99.