Re: Shouldn't we be developing with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2?

[Dirk Herrmann]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Dirk Herrmann wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Rob Browning wrote:
> 
> > While trying to check up on the ia64 bug, I turned typing strictness
> > up to 2, and I notice a lot of suspicious code.  For example, in
> > backtrace.c, there are lots of
> > 
> >   (foo == *bar)
> > 
> > where foo and *bar are SCM's.
> 
> I will fix these.

Fixed.  However, I currently don't have the time to recompile everything
with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2, thus, I am glad to receive bug reports about
typing problems, but am not looking for them myself (at least at the
moment).  If that sounds schizophrenic, well I think that could be.  And
so think I.

> > We've also got some "pointer fits in int" assumptions...  i.e.
> > 
> > in error.c:
> > 
> >     int error = (int) pos;
> > 
> > causes a warning -- pos is a cptr.  You can fix it with ((int) (long)
> > pos), but isn't there something more portable, or is long always
> > guaranteed to be large enough for a ptr?
> 
> Hmmm.  Isn't intptr_t meant to fulfill that requirement?

If you spot such places, it would be great if you could post them to us,
or even better, provide a fix.

Best regards
Dirk Herrmann