From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: deprecated symbol warnings Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 11:19:34 +0100 Message-ID: <42872236.8000300@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <41DEC762.765FDC9F@veritas.com> <41DED481.AEF0CABB@veritas.com> <170174E4-6347-11D9-9F67-000A95909EE2@raeburn.org> <5255fb95816d4cfc841223643e3481a8@raeburn.org> <4285F1CA.5070602@ossau.uklinux.net> <28ae757805033aac63a3f7bf8f4b1ccd@raeburn.org> <17030.48944.683011.894315@devzero.bogus.domain> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1116355746 5318 80.91.229.2 (17 May 2005 18:49:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 18:49:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 17 20:49:01 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DY772-0002ip-0t for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:48:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DY79J-0005s7-MS for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 May 2005 14:50:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DXSP9-0008W1-C4 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 19:20:16 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DXLMr-0002n1-Og for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 11:49:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DXGQf-00025B-U3 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 06:33:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DXGLt-0000Ca-Vm for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 06:28:06 -0400 Original-Received: from laruns (host81-130-142-214.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.130.142.214]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04515409FAF; Sun, 15 May 2005 10:20:33 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193176F6E5; Sun, 15 May 2005 11:19:35 +0100 (BST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050420 Debian/1.7.7-2 X-Accept-Language: en Original-To: "John W. Eaton" , Ken Raeburn In-Reply-To: <17030.48944.683011.894315@devzero.bogus.domain> X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:4503 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:4503 John W. Eaton wrote: > On 14-May-2005, Ken Raeburn wrote: > > | > I think we should assume in advance that we'll hit trouble with this > | > on some platforms. Otherwise it's just another hiccup to push people > | > away from trying Guile out. > | > | *sigh* I was afraid of that. So when do we start requiring "real" > | ANSI C support? :-( > > Can you point to a widely used compiler that will actually have > trouble with this? If not, then maybe it is not worth worrying about? No I can't. But I know that we intermittently get unexpected build errors reported on the mailing list for even fairly mainstream OSs such as Solaris and HP-UX, and recently OS X, so I was just advising caution in order to avoid introducing a possible roadhump for people off the GNU/Linux/gcc mainline. Also, in my own experience (which is reasonable) I've never seen "#define foo foo" used before, so I have no personal feel for how well supported it is. (And you have to agree that it is an edge case, surely?) However ... when advising as above, I hadn't realized that the reported names would be wrong. Now that I realize that, I think it is worth using "#define foo foo" and handling any problems if they arise. (We have future options, if we need them, for using configure tests to test support, and adding a suffix where necessary.) > > | Doing this means the compile-time messages will give the wrong symbol > | names. They'll be close to the names used by the application, but not > | the same. Still, getting messages that are close is probably better > | than explaining to people why this strange use of the preprocessor is > | actually valid and it's their compiler that's broken. I wonder if it's > | really a problem these days, though, a decade and a half after the spec > | was published.... > > Having the messages use the wrong names might cause a lot more > confusion than having to explain to people that their compiler is > broken. Yes, agreed now. Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user