#define name collisions -- yet another small project

2003-08-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
Well, it turns out that at least some compilers (AIX's) are really unhappy about redefined #defines in the C source. This turns out to be a problem with things like HAS_STDLIB_H, which is common enough to cause collisions. So, we need to go name-prefix all the #defines. So, the project. Someone

Re: #define name collisions -- yet another small project

2003-08-14 Thread Benjamin Goldberg
Dan Sugalski wrote: > > Well, it turns out that at least some compilers (AIX's) are really > unhappy about redefined #defines in the C source. This turns out to > be a problem with things like HAS_STDLIB_H, which is common enough to > cause collisions. So, we need to go name-prefix all the #defi

RE: #define name collisions -- yet another small project

2003-08-14 Thread Brent Dax
Vladimir Lipskiy: # Plus I forgot to mention of specific cc flags like -DHAS_JIT, - # D$jitcpuarch, # -DHAVE_COMPUTED_GOTO, -DGC_IS_MALLOC which we set up # in jit.pl, cgoto.pl, gc.pl respectively. I think the flags could settle in # feature.h and also get the PARROT_ prefix. Ain't' these features,

Re: #define name collisions -- yet another small project

2003-08-14 Thread Vladimir Lipskiy
I wrote: > >While configuring we generate 3 header files: config.h, has_header.h, > >feature.h. Plus I forgot to mention of specific cc flags like -DHAS_JIT, -D$jitcpuarch, -DHAVE_COMPUTED_GOTO, -DGC_IS_MALLOC which we set up in jit.pl, cgoto.pl, gc.pl respectively. I think the flags could settle

Re: #define name collisions -- yet another small project

2003-08-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 5:27 AM +0300 8/9/03, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote: > So, the project. Someone needs to go through the configure procedure and the headers and throw a PARROT_ prefix in front of all the HAS_ defines we define, so we can avoid this problem. I have a look at the configure procedure and didn't find an

Re: #define name collisions -- yet another small project

2003-08-14 Thread Vladimir Lipskiy
> So, the project. Someone needs to go through the configure procedure > and the headers and throw a PARROT_ prefix in front of all the HAS_ > defines we define, so we can avoid this problem. Some defines have the HAVE_ prefix. Should those be also prefixed?

Re: #define name collisions -- yet another small project

2003-08-14 Thread Vladimir Lipskiy
> So, the project. Someone needs to go through the configure procedure > and the headers and throw a PARROT_ prefix in front of all the HAS_ > defines we define, so we can avoid this problem. I have a look at the configure procedure and didn't find anything that could have set up something like HA

Re: #define name collisions -- yet another small project

2003-08-10 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:21 PM +0300 8/8/03, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote: > So, the project. Someone needs to go through the configure procedure and the headers and throw a PARROT_ prefix in front of all the HAS_ defines we define, so we can avoid this problem. Some defines have the HAVE_ prefix. Should those be also pr

Re: #define name collisions -- yet another small project

2003-08-09 Thread Vladimir Lipskiy
> At 9:21 PM +0300 8/8/03, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote: > > > So, the project. Someone needs to go through the configure procedure > >> and the headers and throw a PARROT_ prefix in front of all the HAS_ > >> defines we define, so we can avoid this problem. > > > >Some defines have the HAVE_ prefix.

Re: #define name collisions -- yet another small project

2003-08-08 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:01 PM +0300 8/8/03, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote: > At 9:21 PM +0300 8/8/03, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote: > > So, the project. Someone needs to go through the configure procedure >> and the headers and throw a PARROT_ prefix in front of all the HAS_ >> defines we define, so we can avoid this prob