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: `SCM_MAKE_CHAR ()' signedness issue Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:26:44 +0200 Message-ID: <87fxbq6e2j.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87y6pll21u.fsf@gnu.org> <455025BA-B847-4CE3-A81E-785A48ADD1D3@raeburn.org> <873a7rs8yj.fsf@gnu.org> <3D3E5AEF-F1A0-456C-8652-5F040228F176@raeburn.org> 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 1250498088 13998 80.91.229.12 (17 Aug 2009 08:34:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:34:48 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 17 10:34:39 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 1Mcxfr-0004Ny-1b for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:34:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53022 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mcxfq-0001eT-Ey for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:34:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1McxbX-0006mh-2w for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:30:11 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1McxbS-0006l1-7v for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:30:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55098 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1McxbS-0006kt-1R for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:30:06 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:58556) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1McxbR-0004mv-A4 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:30:05 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1McxbO-0002P4-5c for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:30:02 +0200 Original-Received: from laptop-147-210-128-170.labri.fr ([147.210.128.170]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:30:02 +0200 Original-Received: from ludo by laptop-147-210-128-170.labri.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:30:02 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 24 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: laptop-147-210-128-170.labri.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 30 Thermidor 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: sha1:9n7fcwMZULGw/Q2CY159aNk9FQ4= 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:9130 Archived-At: Hi, Ken Raeburn writes: > On Aug 16, 2009, at 18:13, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>> There's always the inline-function approach, too. >> >> Unfortunately no, because we're still not assuming `inline' keyword >> support from the compiler. > > Right, but inline.h deals with that; if "inline" isn't supported you > just get a declaration and make a function call. There would be a > performance hit from doing the function calls all the time, Yes, I'm not sure that's something worth trying. > In fact, there are cases where the argument to SCM_MAKE_CHAR is a > function invocation, where it might be beneficial for performance to > not compute the value twice. Right, but I guess these could be avoided trivially. Thanks, Ludo'.