Re: Guile 1.8.2 Compile Error [GAH]

[Mike Gran <spk121@yahoo.com>]

> From: Kevin Brott <kevin.brott@providence.org>

> I find that this line in numbers.c
> 
> 6081: return scm_from_complex_double (cexp (SCM_COMPLEX_VALUE (z)));
> 
> expands to this:
> 
>       return scm_from_complex_double (cexp (((((scm_t_complex *)
> ((((scm_t_bits) (0? (*(SCM*)0=((((SCM *)((scm_t_cell *) (((scm_t_bits)
> (0? (*(SCM*)0=((((z))))): (((z)))))))) [((1))]))):
> (((SCM
> 
 *)((scm_t_cell
> *) (((scm_t_bits) (0? (*(SCM*)0=((((z))))): (((z))))))))
> [((1))]))))))->real) + __I * (((scm_t_complex *) ((((scm_t_bits) (0?
> (*(SCM*)0=((((SCM *)((scm_t_cell *) (((scm_t_bits) (0?
> (*(SCM*)0=((((z))))): (((z)))))))) [((1))]))): (((SCM *)((scm_t_cell *)
> (((scm_t_bits) (0? (*(SCM*)0=((((z))))): (((z))))))))
> [((1))]))))))->imag))));
> 

You are correct. There is a value in that macro called "_Complex_I" that is, for some reason, being processed down to "__I", losing the word "Complex".

What if you replace "_Complex_I" with "(0.0 + 1.0i)" ?

Good Luck,

Mike Gran

----- Original Message ----
> From: Kevin Brott <kevin.brott@providence.org>
> To: Guile-User <guile-user@gnu.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:37:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Guile 1.8.2 Compile Error [GAH]
> 
> 
> 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: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported
> only
> 
 once
> > numbers.c:6081: error: for each function it appears in.)
> > 
> > And I'm trying to work out where that __I is hiding.
> > 
> 
> Found where it's manifesting, now to figure out why ... from the
> guile-1.8.3 directory, if I do:
> 
>   cpp -I. -DHAVE_CONFIG_H libguile/numbers.c -o foo.cpp
> 
> I find that this line in numbers.c
> 
> 6081: return scm_from_complex_double (cexp (SCM_COMPLEX_VALUE (z)));
> 
> expands to this:
> 
>       return scm_from_complex_double (cexp (((((scm_t_complex *)
> ((((scm_t_bits) (0? (*(SCM*)0=((((SCM *)((scm_t_cell *) (((scm_t_bits)
> (0? (*(SCM*)0=((((z))))): (((z)))))))) [((1))]))):
> (((SCM
> 
 *)((scm_t_cell
> *) (((scm_t_bits) (0? (*(SCM*)0=((((z))))): (((z))))))))
> [((1))]))))))->real) + __I * (((scm_t_complex *) ((((scm_t_bits) (0?
> (*(SCM*)0=((((SCM *)((scm_t_cell *) (((scm_t_bits) (0?
> (*(SCM*)0=((((z))))): (((z)))))))) [((1))]))): (((SCM *)((scm_t_cell *)
> (((scm_t_bits) (0? (*(SCM*)0=((((z))))): (((z))))))))
> [((1))]))))))->imag))));
> 
> So hunting back to where SCM_COMPLEX_VALUE is defined in numbers.c, we
> get
>     168 #define SCM_COMPLEX_VALUE(z) \
>     169   (SCM_COMPLEX_REAL (z) + _Complex_I * SCM_COMPLEX_IMAG (z))
> 
> So it looks like _Complex_I is rendering as __I - and that prpbably
> isn't correct.
> 
> -- 
> #include 
> /* Kevin Brott  
>  * Unix Systems Engineer - SA Group - Provtech
>  * Providence Health Systems, Tigard, OR
>  */
> 
> 
> DISCLAIMER:
> This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and
> may
> 
 contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt
> from
> 
 disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are
> hereby
> 
 notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to
> anyone
> 
 the message or any information contained in the message. If you
> have
> 
 received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender
> by
> 
 reply email and delete this message.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Guile-user mailing list
> Guile-user@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
> 




_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user