From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 31 03:10:56 2021 Received: (at 33848) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Mar 2021 07:10:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53384 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lRV0B-00083i-Tc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 03:10:56 -0400 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:54969) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lRV0A-00083T-12 for 33848@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 03:10:54 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 92.169.147.163 Received: from bababa (lfbn-idf2-1-1335-163.w92-169.abo.wanadoo.fr [92.169.147.163]) (Authenticated sender: mail@ambrevar.xyz) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6BB1E0006; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 07:10:47 +0000 (UTC) From: Pierre Neidhardt To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: bug#33848: Store references in SBCL-compiled code are "invisible" In-Reply-To: <87tuoscsk9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87r2e8jpfx.fsf@gnu.org> <877eg0i43j.fsf@netris.org> <87d0psi1xo.fsf@gnu.org> <874lb3kin6.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87sgynezha.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvj2yesd.fsf@netris.org> <877efwe04u.fsf@gnu.org> <8736qji7c1.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87tvizvzgk.fsf@netris.org> <87o9979gfn.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvizgghs.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k1juaomo.fsf@gnu.org> <87muoqhk62.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87zhsq8wkj.fsf@gnu.org> <87d0pmhbgn.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87r2e28tkv.fsf@gnu.org> <874laygkiy.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87lfa5eymf.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87tuoscsk9.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:10:47 +0200 Message-ID: <87sg4bdci0.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > I provided guidance in 2018 on how to address this issue: > > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/33848 Looks like you are linking to this very same thread :) > Did anyone talk to the SBCL folks? Please, let’s address this rather > than look for workarounds. Content analysis details: (1.8 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.196 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [217.70.183.196 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 33848 Cc: Mark H Weaver , 33848@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: 1.8 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > I provided guidance in 2018 on how to address this issue: > > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/33848 Looks like you are linking to this very same thread :) > Did anyone talk to the SBCL folks? Please, let’s address this rather > than look for workarounds. Content analysis details: (1.8 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.196 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [217.70.183.196 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I provided guidance in 2018 on how to address this issue: > > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/33848 Looks like you are linking to this very same thread :) > Did anyone talk to the SBCL folks? Please, let=E2=80=99s address this ra= ther > than look for workarounds. I've just asked them for advice: https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/1922011 =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAmBkIHcSHG1haWxAYW1i cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/fpUIAKTjnfzzgCtdSXezcntyxl2O9z30+gVc i5tdkmx+rPKPhj0hThw/GhWWyJrKXMuxh9QB5ZfHYQhEImUBlmnmasIZRcX5O15D i5jejNA5rnaCIsxmszlCd5Zv/LT5JBbN6rCONX9L1baYnc0NZ+drar39aULASIWI /cDxcl1eF5+dJz4uXdPoVfDyZVj5u8PqVbP6HJ2wkOpoYjj5pA1w7vgbUNPkSRva ZnjRvXoWHxcMxzzR5/bxEFWgc3Kh6TupvMUOAo0AOK1kdjfmul+jSadcSfUOVe2L TYnwIZGr0zX8nKYPM3g8ZNVmTPMgWdKjZJRPeEZ88+ur9BWyeb9aa3g= =TqV5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--