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
Damn!
I discovered that if GOOPS is loaded first,
libguile/smob.c's 'scm_make_smob_type()' creates
an extended class for registered SMOB types, but
this is (AFAICT) undocumented!
Now, in extensions adding new number reps to
Guile I used everywhere:
(define-class ()
(n #:init-
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 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
"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
> 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
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
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
Corrections... :(
"Marco Maggi" wrote:
>scm_make_extended_class_with_supers("my",
>scm_variable_ref(""));
This must be:
scm_make_extended_class_with_supers("my",
scm_list_1(scm_variable_ref("")));
and the change to 'scm_class_of()' must
be something like:
{
/* Goops object */
if (! scm_is_
