From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Greg Troxel Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: i guess we're frozen & stuff Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:58:30 -0400 Message-ID: References: <8763cuwdkl.fsf@gnu.org> <87hbwerswu.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1250027935 10411 80.91.229.12 (11 Aug 2009 21:58:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 11 23:58:48 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 1MazMj-0006tE-Tl for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:58:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44789 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MazMi-000706-7E for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:58:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MazMd-0006yA-Nm for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:58:39 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MazMZ-0006w5-8V for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:58:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46721 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MazMY-0006vx-UQ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:58:34 -0400 Original-Received: from fnord.ir.bbn.com ([192.1.100.210]:51873) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MazMV-0001xd-Va; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:58:32 -0400 Original-Received: by fnord.ir.bbn.com (Postfix, from userid 10853) id ED7E053F7; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:58:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Hashcash: 1:20:090811:ludo@gnu.org::LZ4tgDSzVDHbQJSF:0000025TD X-Hashcash: 1:20:090811:guile-devel@gnu.org::LZ4tgDSzVDHbQJSF:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000004Z/9 In-Reply-To: <87hbwerswu.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22's?= message of "Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:34:41 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/22.3 (berkeley-unix) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:9082 Archived-At: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > Ken Raeburn writes: > >> However, they're testing for a POSIX 2008 requirement that C99 and >> POSIX 2004 implementations need not meet, namely that NULL be of type >> "void *" instead of any null pointer constant (e.g., "0"). I think >> requiring POSIX 2008 support for Guile and anything that builds on it >> seems like a bad idea. I haven't looked at the libunistring code to >> see why it might be relevant, but it seems like a pretty gratuitous >> imposition to me. The only benefit of it I can see is that a variadic >> function can then take NULL as an argument without casting to char*; >> is that worth refusing to support other systems? > > I didn't know it was a POSIX 2008 requirement. Then indeed, we should > discuss this with the libunistring folks. gnulib upstream claims that while they are testing for POSIX 2008, it's only to behave right if it isn't met. But the test code fails when NULL is '(void *)0'. As I read a reply on a netbsd list, C99 says that NULL is a constant with value 0 or that vast to void *, and "(void *)0" seems to meet that requirement quite nicely. I wonder if it's a gcc bug that 'sizeof (void *) 0' fails. Regardless, guile aims to be far more portable than POSIX 2008 (which I had not even heard of until today, and at work I'm one of the chief ranters making people read posix instead of assuming the way their linux box behaves is the spec). --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (NetBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkqB6YYACgkQ+vesoDJhHiVTBACffqF3XLznNfnBLf/iNFdKVEic 0sEAn0MAOfcX3zvE4zg6UesfiSCeJWhX =3oh/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--