guile.m4

guile.m4

[Aaron VanDevender]

Here is a slightly improved version of my guile.m4 patch. It has some
more explicit comments and uses the guile executable set by GUILE_PROGS

Index: guile.m4
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/guile/guile/guile-core/guile-config/guile.m4,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -r1.8 guile.m4
--- guile.m4	16 Apr 2006 23:36:35 -0000	1.8
+++ guile.m4	13 Jun 2006 14:35:50 -0000
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
 ## GUILE_FLAGS -- set flags for compiling and linking with Guile
 ## GUILE_SITE_DIR -- find path to Guile "site" directory
 ## GUILE_CHECK -- evaluate Guile Scheme code and capture the return value
+## GUILE_CHECK_VERSION -- checks for a version of the guile interpreter
 ## GUILE_MODULE_CHECK -- check feature of a Guile Scheme module
 ## GUILE_MODULE_AVAILABLE -- check availability of a Guile Scheme module
 ## GUILE_MODULE_REQUIRED -- fail if a Guile Scheme module is unavailable
@@ -112,7 +113,7 @@
 
 # GUILE_CHECK -- evaluate Guile Scheme code and capture the return value
 #
-# Usage: GUILE_CHECK_RETVAL(var,check)
+# Usage: GUILE_CHECK(var,check)
 #
 # @var{var} is a shell variable name to be set to the return value.
 # @var{check} is a Guile Scheme expression, evaluated with "$GUILE -c", and
@@ -126,6 +127,36 @@
   $1=$?
  ])
 
+# GUILE_CHECK_VERSION -- check for a particular Guile version
+#
+# Usage: GUILE_CHECK_VERSION(MIN-VERSION, [ACTION-IF-FOUND], [ACTION-IF-NOTFOUND])
+#
+# @var{MIN-VERSION} is the minimum guile version to check for.
+# @var{ACTION-IF-FOUND} is an action to perform if guile version MIN-VERSION or
+#    or greater is found. Defaults to do nothing.
+# @var{ACTION-IF-NOT-FOUND} is an action to perform if no guile version MIN-VERSION
+#    or greater is found. Defaults to throwing a configure error.
+AC_DEFUN([GUILE_CHECK_VERSION],
+[AC_REQUIRE([GUILE_PROGS])dnl
+AC_MSG_CHECKING([for guile version >= $1])
+GUILE_CHECK([GUILE_CORRECT_VERSION_P],
+    [(exit (let loop ((v1 (map string->number (string-split (version) (string-ref \".\" 0))))
+             (v2 (map string->number (string-split \"$1\" (string-ref \".\" 0)))))
+             (cond ((and (null? v1) (null? v2)) 0)
+                   ((null? v1) 0)
+                   ((null? v2) 1)
+                   ((> (car v1) (car v2)) 0)
+                   ((< (car v1) (car v2)) 1)
+                   (else (loop (cdr v1) (cdr v2))))))])
+AC_SUBST(GUILE_VERSION,[`$GUILE -c "(display (version))"`])
+if test 0 -eq "$GUILE_CORRECT_VERSION_P" ; then
+   AC_MSG_RESULT([yes ($GUILE_VERSION)])
+m4_ifval([$2], [   $2])dnl
+   else
+   AC_MSG_RESULT([no ($GUILE_VERSION)])
+m4_ifvaln([$3], [   $3], [   AC_MSG_ERROR([requires guile >= $1])])dnl
+fi])
+
 # GUILE_MODULE_CHECK -- check feature of a Guile Scheme module
 #
 # Usage: GUILE_MODULE_CHECK(var,module,featuretest,description)




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

Re: guile.m4

[Neil Jerram]

Aaron VanDevender <sig@netdot.net> writes:

> Here is a slightly improved version of my guile.m4 patch. It has some
> more explicit comments and uses the guile executable set by GUILE_PROGS

Thanks for working on this.  I have a couple of queries.

> +GUILE_CHECK([GUILE_CORRECT_VERSION_P],
> +    [(exit (let loop ((v1 (map string->number (string-split (version) (string-ref \".\" 0))))
> +             (v2 (map string->number (string-split \"$1\" (string-ref \".\" 0)))))

Can we use #\. instead of (string-ref "." 0), or is the former a
nightmare to quote correctly?

> +             (cond ((and (null? v1) (null? v2)) 0)
> +                   ((null? v1) 0)
> +                   ((null? v2) 1)
> +                   ((> (car v1) (car v2)) 0)
> +                   ((< (car v1) (car v2)) 1)

Shouldn't the (null? v1) case have the same polarity as the (< v1 v2)
case (because absence == 0) ?

Regards,
     Neil



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

Re: guile.m4

[Aaron VanDevender]

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 01:17 +0100, Neil Jerram wrote:
> > +GUILE_CHECK([GUILE_CORRECT_VERSION_P],
> > +    [(exit (let loop ((v1 (map string->number (string-split (version) (string-ref \".\" 0))))
> > +             (v2 (map string->number (string-split \"$1\" (string-ref \".\" 0)))))
> 
> Can we use #\. instead of (string-ref "." 0), or is the former a
> nightmare to quote correctly?

I tried to escape it, and I couldn't figure it out. And from
guile.m4:GUILE_CHECK:

#    Avoid using the character "#" since that confuses autoconf.

It may not be possible. I don't know.

> > +             (cond ((and (null? v1) (null? v2)) 0)
> > +                   ((null? v1) 0)
> > +                   ((null? v2) 1)
> > +                   ((> (car v1) (car v2)) 0)
> > +                   ((< (car v1) (car v2)) 1)
> 
> Shouldn't the (null? v1) case have the same polarity as the (< v1 v2)
> case (because absence == 0) ?

Yes, you are correct. It should be:
             (cond ((and (null? v1) (null? v2)) 0) 
                   ((null? v1) 1)
                   ((null? v2) 0)
                   ((> (car v1) (car v2)) 0)
                   ((< (car v1) (car v2)) 1)
                   (else (loop (cdr v1) (cdr v2))))))

I had it all figured out with #f's and #t's instead of 1's and 0's, but
then I couldn't get it to escape in autoconf, so I guess I messed it up
when I switched to 0's and 1's.

Good eyes.



-- 

sig@netdot.net
Plead the First.


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

Re: guile.m4

[Kevin Ryde]

Aaron VanDevender <sig@netdot.net> writes:
>
> +# GUILE_CHECK_VERSION -- check for a particular Guile version
> +#
> +# Usage: GUILE_CHECK_VERSION(MIN-VERSION, [ACTION-IF-FOUND], [ACTION-IF-NOTFOUND])

The autoconf philosophy is usually not to check version numbers
explicitly if it can be avoided, better to check for desired
feature(s).

Since guile is interpreted you can do a lot at runtime instead of
worrying about it during configure too.


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

Re: guile.m4

[Aaron VanDevender]

On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 10:57 +1000, Kevin Ryde wrote:
> The autoconf philosophy is usually not to check version numbers
> explicitly if it can be avoided, better to check for desired
> feature(s).
> 
> Since guile is interpreted you can do a lot at runtime instead of
> worrying about it during configure too.

Not really for my purposes. I want to be able to decide if I should use
SCM_MUST_MALLOC or scm_gc_malloc. This isn't something that the
interpreter can tell me. I suppose I can grep though the header file,
but it seemed that checking for the version was more robust.

Is there a better way?

-- 

sig@netdot.net
Plead the First.


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

Re: guile.m4

[Stephen Compall]

On Jun 14, 2006, at 8:59 PM, Aaron VanDevender wrote:
> Not really for my purposes. I want to be able to decide if I should  
> use
> SCM_MUST_MALLOC or scm_gc_malloc. This isn't something that the
> interpreter can tell me. I suppose I can grep though the header file,
> but it seemed that checking for the version was more robust.
>
> Is there a better way?

Add the Guile libs to $LIBS and see if you can compile a test call to  
scm_gc_malloc using AC_CHECK_FUNCS(scm_gc_malloc).

The general formula for autoconf is to do things directly.  In your  
case, you want to see if you can use scm_gc_malloc; therefore, the  
way to go is to directly try to compile a call to said function.

-- 
Stephen Compall
http://scompall.nocandysw.com/blog



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