[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi,
>
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thanks, I was lucky there. Do you think it's worth adding something
>> to CVS to try to make sure that we don't accidentally use func_data
>> again in future?
>>
>> What I have in mind is a new test
Hi,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks, I was lucky there. Do you think it's worth adding something
> to CVS to try to make sure that we don't accidentally use func_data
> again in future?
>
> What I have in mind is a new test in test-suite/standalone, which
> would grep all Guile'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Great, thank you Neil! (It'd have taken time before I could think of
> such a thing...)
Thanks, I was lucky there. Do you think it's worth adding something
to CVS to try to make sure that we don't accidentally use func_data
again in future?
What I
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 10:10 -0800, Kevin Brott wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 13:59 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >
> > `Complex' in `_Complex_I' can't possibly be macro-expanded. There must
> > be something else.
>
> Could line 52 be expanded/dereferenced by cpp to make _Complex_I resolve
>
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 13:59 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mike Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You are correct. There is a value in that macro called "_Complex_I" that
> > is, for some reason, being processed down to "__I", losing the word
> > "Complex".
>
> `Complex' in `_Co
Hi,
Mike Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are correct. There is a value in that macro called "_Complex_I" that is,
> for some reason, being processed down to "__I", losing the word "Complex".
`Complex' in `_Complex_I' can't possibly be macro-expanded. There must
be something else.
Thank
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 11:17 -0800, Mike Gran wrote:
> You are correct. There is a value in that macro called "_Complex_I" that is,
> for some reason, being processed down to "__I", losing the word "Complex".
>
> What if you replace "_Complex_I" with "(0.0 + 1.0i)" ?
>
> Good Luck,
>
> Mike Gr
t is,
for some reason, being processed down to "__I", losing the word "Complex".
What if you replace "_Complex_I" with "(0.0 + 1.0i)" ?
Good Luck,
Mike Gran
- Original Message
> From: Kevin Brott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Guile-User
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 09:59 -0800, Kevin Brott wrote:
> No - it bombs out now, trying to compile numbers.c with this error:
>
> numbers.c: In function 'scm_exp':
> numbers.c:6081: error: '__I' undeclared (first use in this function)
> numbers.c:6081: error: (Each undeclared identifier is report
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 14:35 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Going back to your original report... all of the compile errors were
> > triggered on lines containing "func_data". Is it possible that you're
> > somehow pulling in a header which
Hi,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Going back to your original report... all of the compile errors were
> triggered on lines containing "func_data". Is it possible that you're
> somehow pulling in a header which #defines func_data to be something
> else (including a .) ? What happens
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 17:29 -0800, Kevin Brott wrote:
> running a 'find' now to see if func_data is showing up somewhere else
> being sneaky.
Didn't find anything more in the guile source code - I did replace all
instances of "func_data" with "xxx_func_data". The make gets a lot
further now befor
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 00:39 +, Neil Jerram wrote:
> "Kevin Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Still baffled - but haven't given up yet.
>
> Going back to your original report... all of the compile errors were
> triggered on lines containing "func_data". Is it possible that you're
> so
> From: Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> "Kevin Brott" writes:
>
> > Still baffled - but haven't given up yet.
>
> Going back to your original report... all of the compile errors were
> triggered on lines containing "func_data". Is it possible that you're
> somehow pulling in a header which
"Kevin Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Still baffled - but haven't given up yet.
Going back to your original report... all of the compile errors were
triggered on lines containing "func_data". Is it possible that you're
somehow pulling in a header which #defines func_data to be something
el
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 23:20 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> "Kevin Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > However, all of the code snippets listed above fail in exactly the same
> > way on Ubuntu as they did on AIX. So I'm guessing that some config
> > guessing is wrong on AIX, and either it's
Hi,
"Kevin Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, all of the code snippets listed above fail in exactly the same
> way on Ubuntu as they did on AIX. So I'm guessing that some config
> guessing is wrong on AIX, and either it's trying to compile code
> segments that isn't being compiled on
On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 16:08 -0800, Kevin Brott wrote:
> >
> > Then just "gcc -c the-file.c".
> >
>
> Those two examples compile fine. I'll retest the original test files
> the same way, and report back tomorrow, as I'm sodding off work for the
> day. :)
>
Okay - so re-running everything via
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 00:51 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> It's better to put the declaration outside (to avoid cumulating
> potential problems). You could try this:
>
> typedef void * (* foo_t) (void *, void *);
>
> foo_t
> doit (foo_t x)
> {
> return x;
> }
>
> Or this:
>
>
Hi,
"Kevin Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd agree - except this is the only code it's broken on, and I went
> through freshly compiled versions of gcc 3.3.6, 3.4.6, 4.0.4, 4.1.2, and
> 4.2.2 - and all of them have the same basic problem. FWIW - I couldn't
> get 1.6.8 to compile until I ha
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >
> > Did you prepend "#define SCM_API extern"? It will fail without this.
> >
When I do that ... and this is the code:
---cut---
main ()
{
#define SCM_API extern
typedef void *(*scm_t_c_hook_function) (void *hook_data,
vo
Bollux, let's try that again...
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 00:14 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
..
> This is the second line of the typedef for `scm_t_c_hook_function'. Can
> you try compiling *only* that typedef? And then this:
>
> typedef void * (* foo_t) (void *, void *);
>
> Then:
>
> type
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 00:14 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
..
> > In file included from ../libguile/gc.h:27,
> > from ../libguile.h:73,
> > from discouraged.c:22:
> > ./libguile/hooks.h:43: error: expected ';', ',' or ')' before '.' token
>
> This is the second li
Hi,
"Kevin Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In file included from ../libguile/gc.h:27,
> from ../libguile.h:73,
> from discouraged.c:22:
> ./libguile/hooks.h:43: error: expected ';', ',' or ')' before '.' token
This is the second line of the typedef for `scm
Ludovic, et al;
On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 21:13 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "Kevin Brott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hopefully I'm not out-of-line or violating protocol in some brutish
> > fashion, but regarding this query/response on the guile-user mailing
> > list archive ...
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> When compiling on AIX 5.3 using IBM's supplied GCC 4.0.0 I get
> this error.
> ---snip-
> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I.. -I.. -D_THREAD_SAFE
> -I/sys/usr/local/include -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Werror -MT
> libguile_la-discouraged.lo -MD -M
26 matches
Mail list logo
