Re: scm_mutex_lock and scm_mutex_unlock

2005-10-23 Thread Michael Tuexen
Hi Marius, thanks, that works. It now stops at eval.c:2658: error: `PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP' undeclared here (not in a function) Any idea, how to fix that? I'm trying to compile it on Mac OS X 10.3.9. Best regards Michael On Oct 23, 2005, at 14:28 Uhr, Marius Vollmer wrote:

Re: scm_mutex_lock and scm_mutex_unlock

2005-10-23 Thread Marius Vollmer
Michael Tuexen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm trying to compile guile-1.7.2 on Mac OS X 10.3.9. The compilation > breaks because scm_mutex_lock and scm_mutex_unlock are used in > libguile/arbiters.c but the compiler and I can not find a definition > of those functions. Where are they defined?

Re: scm_mutex_lock and scm_mutex_unlock

2005-10-23 Thread Michael Tuexen
Hi Marius, see my comments in-line. Best regards Michael On Oct 23, 2005, at 22:13 Uhr, Marius Vollmer wrote: Michael Tuexen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: eval.c:2658: error: `PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP' undeclared here (not in a function) Any idea, how to fix that? I'm trying t

Re: scm_mutex_lock and scm_mutex_unlock

2005-10-23 Thread Marius Vollmer
Michael Tuexen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I guess the most portable way to get recursive mutexes is to use >> pthread_mutex_init together with pthread_mutexattr_settype with >> PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE, which is defined in UNIX98. > > That sounds good. PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE is defined on my s

Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'

2005-10-23 Thread Kevin Ryde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] #:replace @var{list} > ... > +One example of this is @code{(srfi srfi-19)} which exports > [EMAIL PROTECTED] This isn't a great example. See if you can make up something, to avoid confusing anyone about what srfi-19 actually does o

Re: 1.6.8 release candidate 0 available for testing.

2005-10-23 Thread Kevin Ryde
Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 1) declare the Scheme proc strftime has extended semantics beyond C99, >document them, Straight "pass through" to libc sounds good to me. >and make the implementation set TZ before calling >strftime (perhaps unless an implementation which gu

Re: 1.6.8 release candidate 0 available for testing.

2005-10-23 Thread Kevin Ryde
Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > strftime of %Z returns "EST", which is the correct time zone for the > program given no TZ in environment and isdst zero. Comments in the > NetBSD libc sources indicate that returning the current zone is > a legitimate response according to C99. I disab