[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Now that SCM type is a union...
From: |
Ken Raeburn |
Subject: |
Re: Now that SCM type is a union... |
Date: |
Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:21:49 -0400 |
On Aug 14, 2011, at 22:04, Ken Raeburn wrote:
>>> * Shouldn't there be testing to catch this? (C89 mode, C99 mode,
>>> different C++ specs, enabling various compiler warnings -- for
>>> whatever compiler is in use -- and make them fatal, any interesting
>>> ways one might want to use libguile in an application that might
>>> stress compatibility issues.) I mean automated testing, not just
>>> Cedric. :-)
>>
>> Perhaps :) Interested volunteers are welcome to set this up :)
>
> I've done it before for other projects... you just need to add to the test
> suite a few files to be compiled with certain compilers and compiler options
> -- perhaps repeatedly with different options -- and make sure they compile.
> If you want to get really fancy, link and run some trivial programs, but
> generally compiling with lots of warning options is good enough, at least for
> C. For GCC, for example, I'd start with "gcc -Wall -Wextra -Werror
> -pedantic" and "g++ -Wall -Wextra -Werror -pedantic", and add more
> interesting options from there, then multiply that by the various "-std"
> options available; the Solaris compiler has a different syntax for warning
> options, but it too can be told to enable various warnings and make them
> errors.
>
> I'll see about setting up something simple...
Oh, hm, automake... on second thought, this might take a while....
Ken