[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: guile-1.8.5 test failures

From: Peter O'Gorman
Subject: Re: guile-1.8.5 test failures
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:07:04 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:50:27PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > 1. Fix a build failure on hppa-hpux11.23 due to core dump during configure
> >    with -luca
> What's wrong with using it on non-IA64 machines?  Isn't it supposed
> serve the same purpose regardless of the architecture?

Well it is only used on ia64. On pa_risc there is no need for it. The
section of code that uses it is in
#ifdef __ia64__
#ifdef __hpux

in gc.c, it is not needed on pa_risc, and caused a problem for us.

> > 2. Don't detect the non-posix gmtime_r and readdir_r on hpux10.20
> Does defining `_POSIX_SOURCE' fix it?

hpux-10.20 is very old and does not have posix conforming versions of
these functions, the versions that it does have are from an earlier
posix draft.

> > 3. Fix build error on Tru64 Unix with the DEC compiler, which does not like
> >    the non-constant expression in case: statements, and on irix which does
> >    not like the non-constant expression in the initializers in read.c and
> >    print.c. (yes, I know - yuck).
> But these are constants!

I'll look into this again.
> > 4. #define LONG_LONG_MIN and LONG_LONG_MAX id the are not available
> >    (unfortunately I can not remember which system this was on).
> Eh, can you remember now?  :-)

No, but perhaps we should just use SCM_I_LLONG_MIN and SCM_I_LLONG_MAX
(which I have only just noticed) here.

> > 5. Some older systems have inttypes.h that does not define PRIiMAX.
> OK, I checked it in.

> > 6. xlc on AIX 4.3 does not like 'static const char s_scm_hash_fold[];', we
> >    moved the code around to make it unnecessary.
> Hmm, what does it mean that it doesn't like it?  It's valid C, right?
> (It's always annoying to move code around because then it makes it
> harder to track the origin of a change, e.g., via `git-blame'.)

Well, after preprocessing the compiler sees something like:

static const char s_scm_hash_fold[];
<some usage of s_scm_hash_fold>
static const char s_scm_hash_fold[]="Some string";

And, rightly, I think, complains. By moving the code around it sees:
static const char s_scm_hash_fold[]="Some string";
<some usage of s_scm_hash_fold>
And it likes that better :-)

> OK, we'll see that later if you don't mind.  :-)

Ok. Thanks.

Peter O'Gorman

reply via email to

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