[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Shouldn't we be developing with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2?
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: Shouldn't we be developing with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2? |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:27:27 +0200 (MEST) |
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