[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Well, nothing to be really "concerned" about, mostly consistency. In a > declaration, `()' has a different meaning than `(void)', but not in the > definition. According to section 6.7.5.3 or ISO/IEC 9899:1999: > > 10 The special case of an unnamed parameter of type void as the only > item in the list specifies that the function has no parameters. > > [...] > > 14 An identifier list declares only the identifiers of the parameters > of the function. An empty list in a function declarator that is > part of a definition of that function specifies that the function > has no parameters. The empty list in a function declarator that is > not part of a definition of that function specifies that no > information about the number or types of the parameters is > supplied.124) > > Since, the declarations in `print.h' use `(void)', there's nothing > really serious here.
Thanks. But in the absence of any actual problem, I think I'll leave this as is for now. >>> Below is an updated patch. I modified `PUSH_REF ()' as well so that it >>> does PSTATE->TOP++ _after_ using the `PSTATE_STACK_SET ()' macro: this >>> is safer. >> >> Why is it safer? > > Because of the side effects these macros may introduce, as described in > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.0.2/cpp/Duplication-of-Side-Effects.html#Duplication-of-Side-Effects > . Yes of course, silly me. I misread what you said you had done as changing PSTATE->TOP++ to ++(PSTATE->TOP). This is definitely a good change. This patch is now in CVS. Thanks for all your effort on this. Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
