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 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
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
> From: Kevin Brott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I find that this line in numbers.c
>
> 6081: return scm_from_complex_double (cexp (SCM_COMPLEX_VALUE (z)));
>
> expands to this:
>
> return scm_from_complex_double (cexp (scm_t_complex *)
> scm_t_bits) (0? (*(SCM*)0=SCM *)((scm_t_cell
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
