From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: more compilation failures: -DSCM_DEBUG_TYPING_STRICTNESS=2 Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:47:52 +0200 Message-ID: <87bplu4fbr.fsf@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1251834549 19694 80.91.229.12 (1 Sep 2009 19:49:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:49:09 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 01 21:49:02 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MiZLd-0004nh-S9 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:48:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43890 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MiZLd-0006uE-Aw for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:48:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MiZL5-0006OR-9t for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:48:23 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MiZL0-0006Hm-9a for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:48:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41435 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MiZL0-0006HR-3d for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:48:18 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:39421) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MiZKy-0002Fc-TG for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:48:17 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MiZKv-0004Zf-JI for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:48:13 +0200 Original-Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:48:13 +0200 Original-Received: from ludo by reverse-83.fdn.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:48:13 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 65 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: reverse-83.fdn.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 15 Fructidor an 217 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volutio?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?n?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:deByXKyhYSCYz+wuJBsEByKsZXo= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:9237 Archived-At: Hi Ken, Ken Raeburn writes: > Compiling with SCM_DEBUG_TYPING_STRICTNESS=2 as discussed in __scm.h Another compilation flag that must be rarely used. :-) Do you find it useful? > It also means constant values for static initializers ("{ { BITS } }") > have a different form from run-time expressions generating certain > values ("scm_pack (BITS)" calls an inline function), and comparisons > can't be done with "==" and "!=". (In fact, tags.h already says "SCM > values can not be compared by using the operator ==", right above the > definition of scm_is_eq.) > > Guess what we're also doing? :-) > And I haven't even tried compiling Ludovic's bdw-gc-static-alloc > branch yet, just master. Indeed, we're in trouble. > #1: We continue to not support static initialization. [...] > #1a: Extend #1 later with whatever internal macros are needed to > provide the right initialization syntax for constructs used in bdw-gc- > static-alloc based on the STRICTNESS setting. > > #1b: Try to supplement #1 with changes to SCM_PACK or SCM_MAKIFLAG to > make it not considered a compile-time constant even with STRICTNESS<2 > and thus SCM_UNSPECIFIED, SCM_BOOL_F, etc are never suitable for > static initialization, catching this problem earlier in the future. [...] > #1c: Try to supplement #1 by defaulting to STRICTNESS=2 on platforms > where the union is passed and returned the same way as the pointer or > integer in function calls [...] > #2: Drop STRICTNESS=2 support and really support static initialization > with the current macros. > > #3: Keep STRICTNESS=2 support, and support static initialization, even > for application code, with a bunch of new macros. My preference is for #2 because: (1) I've never used it ;-), and (2) we're moving away from C anyway. Hmm, weak arguments maybe. Anyway, in the meantime, we can conditionalize static initialization stuff from bdw-gc-static-alloc on STRICTNESS == 0 and keep everyone happy. Does that sound reasonable? > It looks like the eval code is going to be annoying too I wouldn't worry much about this one either as its probably doomed, once Andy's eval cleanup work is mature. Things have been moving too fast lately! Thanks, Ludo'.