On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 10:32 -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Richard Shann <richard.sh...@virgin.net> writes:
> > Well it seems I may have been premature in saying that srfi-1 was
> > successfully loaded. Although the error message is gone, there is no
> > symbol 'map which srfi-1 should have re-defined.
> > Can someone suggest what this might be a symptom of?
>
> I wrote:
> > I know what's wrong. Please try replacing the calls to
> > 'scm_c_register_extension' with the following:
> >
> > scm_c_define_module ("srfi srfi-1", init_srfi_1, NULL);
> > scm_c_define_module ("srfi srfi-60", init_srfi_60, NULL);
> [...]
This worked in that map was defined, but then make-regexp was undefined
- we (use-modules (ice-9 regex)) in our opening preamble, which I guess
may re-define that, but grepping through the ice-9 directory I didn't
see any sign of the load-extension call that happens in srfi-1 and 60.
>
> Sorry, this isn't quite right either. Instead of the above, please try
> replacing the calls to 'scm_c_register_extension' with the following:
>
> scm_c_call_with_current_module (scm_c_resolve_module ("srfi srfi-1"),
> init_srfi_1, NULL);
> scm_c_call_with_current_module (scm_c_resolve_module ("srfi srfi-60"),
> init_srfi_60, NULL);
>
> Where 'init_srfi_1' and 'init_srfi_60' are defined as follows:
>
> static SCM
> init_srfi_1 (void *dummy)
> {
> scm_init_srfi_1 ();
> return SCM_UNSPECIFIED;
> }
>
> static SCM
> init_srfi_60 (void *dummy)
> {
> scm_init_srfi_60 ();
> return SCM_UNSPECIFIED;
> }
>
This seemed to have a dramatic effect! The program exits at startup with
the message
ERROR: Unbound variable: map
and return status 1
Until now I felt we were converging on something :) One thing that
puzzles me is that other srfi numbers have static libraries generated
for them, but on 1 and 60 would seem to be needed?
Thanks for the support...
Richard
