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

[Rob Browning]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> The point is, that you can't generate actual code with
> TYPING_STRICTNESS=2.  See below for an explanation.

OK.  I didn't realize that.

>> And as an orthogonal question, is guile supposed to work on 64 bit
>> archs right now?
>
> I don't know.  However, I think there is a lot of code in guile that
> is not very strict with respect to typing.

OK, well do you (or does anyone else) have any likely candidates for
problematic areas I might keep in mind?  I.e. thigs we already suspect
might not work?

>> 
>>     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?

Ahh.  Thanks, I thought there was probably something like that, but I
didn't recall where it might be.

> (This is, simplified, the explanation.)  However, why to we have
> TYPING_STRICTNESS=2 then?  The point is, that this mode detects a lot of
> potential problems with typing in ordinary code.  We have to live with the
> fact that other code will not compile in that mode.

Things are much clearer now.  Thanks for the explanation.

> Well, for normal development typing strictness set to 1 should be
> sufficient.  However, from time to time a compilation with
> TYPING_STRICTNESS=2 should be done, especially with an upcoming release.

OK.  I'll do it, and I think I'll add that to the ./RELEASE process.

Thanks

-- 
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