[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Plan for 2.0
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Plan for 2.0 |
Date: |
Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:43:21 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Neil,
"Neil Jerram" <address@hidden> writes:
> Below is a raw summary of all diffs between current branch_release-1-8
> and master. Next step is to check that everything here is correct,
> and properly+fully documented in the manual and in NEWS. The
> "Queries" at the end are bits that I'm not sure I understand yet.
Thanks for going through this.
> Use of Gnulib
> - linker warning
> - alloca - Have we inadvertently removed requirement for a real alloca?
No. Gnulib's `alloca' provides a substitute when that's needed and most
importantly provides the right #ifdefs to get a working `alloca ()' (see
`lib/alloca.in.h' and (info "(autoconf) Particular Functions")).
> serial number in guile.m4
Why is that? Are there differences?
> eval.c/eval.i.c
> - still need to compare old eval.c against new eval.i.c
> - why does eval.i.c contain code that is common to both modes and that
> is not compiled twice?
Like what? The top of the file is in `#ifdef DEVAL'.
> SCM_INTERNAL (grep diffs for SCM_INTERNAL to get list of affected functions)
Speaking of which, some functions were left external (e.g.,
`scm_i_string_chars ()') under the assumption that if we changed that in
1.8 (which was my plan back then) it would break apps. We may need to
revise that.
> Queries
> =======
> AC_SUBST(GCC_FLAGS)
This is so that we don't compile Gnulib code with `-Wall -Werror' since
Gnulib doesn't guarantee that this would work.
> lib-version.texi
This is for use in `api-i18n.texi', for instance.
> ChangeLogs still in distribution?
Yes, same as for `branch_release-1-8'.
> libguile in subdirs list of pre-inst-guile.in
Dunno why. The Right Way would be to use `libtool --mode=execute
-dlopen foo-bar.la' anyway.
Thanks,
Ludo'.
- Re: Plan for 2.0, (continued)
- Re: Plan for 2.0, Neil Jerram, 2009/01/07
- Re: Plan for 2.0,
Ludovic Courtès <=
Re: Plan for 2.0, David Séverin, 2009/01/09