[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Intel icc finds too many errors in guile 1.8.8 to compile
From: |
Neil Jerram |
Subject: |
Re: Intel icc finds too many errors in guile 1.8.8 to compile |
Date: |
Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:21:48 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) |
"I.Gutheil" <address@hidden> writes:
> Hello all,
> did anyone try to compile the guile codes with another compiler but the gcc?
> When I tried to use the icc, I got
> gen-scmconfig.c(257): error #279: controlling expression is constant
> if (SCM_I_GSC_C_INLINE)
> ^
>
> gen-scmconfig.c(321): error #279: controlling expression is constant
> if (SCM_I_GSC_T_INT64)
> ^
>
> gen-scmconfig.c(333): error #279: controlling expression is constant
> if (SCM_I_GSC_T_UINT64)
Presumably that only happens with an option like -Werror?
If so, the solution is not to use that option.
> debug.c(62): error #188: enumerated type mixed with another type
> scm_dynwind_begin (0);
>
> This could be "corrected" by declaring
> in dynwind.h
> SCM_API void scm_dynwind_begin (int) instead of the derived datatype
> which could only be 1
> and in dynwind.c
>
> void
> scm_dynwind_begin (int flags)
> ...
Agreed; using enums here is just asking for trouble. I've changed it to
#defines.
> I get a lot of remarks that
>
> operands are evaluated in unspecified order
>
> and
> remark #193: zero used for undefined preprocessing identifier
> "HAVE_SYS_STDTYPES_H"
> (for example)
In general I would say that those remarks don't matter. Are there any
that you think indicate actual problems?
> but finally I came to a compiler error which I could not correct:
>
> eval.c(4114): error #589: transfer of control bypasses initialization of:
> variable "orig_sym" (declared at line 4038)
> goto handle_a_macro;
Do you still see this? Looking at the code now, there are no labels
between where orig_sym is declared and initialized, and where it's used;
so I can't see a problem.
> And just for eval.c I get about 700 remarks like
> eval.c(6021): remark #981: operands are evaluated in unspecified order
> return SCM_I_XEVAL (x, env);
> ^
> (which is the last one)
As above, I doubt that any of these are real problems. If you want to
clean up your icc build, can you disable those remarks?
Regards,
Neil
- Re: Intel icc finds too many errors in guile 1.8.8 to compile,
Neil Jerram <=