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/respon
27;
> > test2.c:16: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
> > 'void'
> >
> > Which are the SCM_API declarations again.
>
> Again, no error with the typedef?
>
> > Suggestions, corre
.c:3: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before 'foo_t'
> Then maybe this:
>
> extern void make_foo (void *x, foo_t *function);
>
Same error.
> This is all trial-and-error since I have no idea of what's wrong with
> this com
x27; before '*' token
test.c:14: error: expected ')' before '*' token
--
#include
/* Kevin Brott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Unix Systems Engineer - SA Group - Provtech
* Providence Health Systems, Tigard, OR
*/
DISCLAIMER:
This message is intended for the sole use
ng perhaps as it's running gcc 4.1.x). I'll have to try
the full guile 1.8.3 code there too, and see if I can spot the config
differences (assuming it builds there).
--
#include
/* Kevin Brott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Unix Systems Engineer - SA Group - Provtech
* Providence Health
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
&g
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
> &
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 containin
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_dat
#x27;re
> > somehow pulling in a header which #defines func_data to be something
> > else (including a .) ? What happens if you change all occurrences of
> > "func_data" to "xxx_func_data" and then build again?
>
> "Kevin Brott" <[E
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: er
need to figure out WTH is wrong with the AIX that
_Complex_I is dereferencing as __I when the notes in that file clearly
state that __I shouldn't ever be called directly.
--
#include
/* Kevin Brott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Unix Systems Engineer - SA Group - Provtech
* Providence Health
60
61 /*
62 * C99 requires this definition of the
63 * very common variable "I", to use as a simpler way
64 * to say _Complex_I. Mathematicians who would say
65 * "3i" will now say in C "3 * I".
66 */
67 #undef I
68 #def
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/dere
14 matches
Mail list logo
