guile-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Rob Browning
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be developing with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2?
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:37:54 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

>>   if (SCM_EQ_P (SCM_SHOW_FILE_NAME, sym_base))

> That is a problem with the implementation of the options.  We could
> probably add some hacks to macros like SCM_SHOW_FILE_NAME as a workaround,
> but I would prefer the options implementation to be revised.  We should,
> however, don't add hacks for the compilation with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2,
> since (as I will explain below) you can't generate code for it anyway.

As a temporary fix in the tree I'm hacking on, I did this, but I
wasn't sure if it was at all correct...

  if (SCM_EQ_P (SCM_PACK(SCM_SHOW_FILE_NAME), sym_base))

I did this in eval.h (which was also a guess):

  -#define SCM_ENTER_FRAME_HDLR   (SCM)(scm_evaluator_trap_table[4].val)
  -#define SCM_APPLY_FRAME_HDLR   (SCM)(scm_evaluator_trap_table[5].val)
  -#define SCM_EXIT_FRAME_HDLR    (SCM)(scm_evaluator_trap_table[6].val)
  +#define SCM_ENTER_FRAME_HDLR   (SCM_PACK(scm_evaluator_trap_table[4].val))
  +#define SCM_APPLY_FRAME_HDLR   (SCM_PACK(scm_evaluator_trap_table[5].val))
  +#define SCM_EXIT_FRAME_HDLR    (SCM_PACK(scm_evaluator_trap_table[6].val))

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]