Re: Now that SCM type is a union...

[Andy Wingo]

Hi Ken,

On Sun 14 Aug 2011 00:00, Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> writes:

>  * We should expect some Guile applications to be in C++.  What
>  versions of the C++ spec should Guile support?

Dunno.  What do other languages have to do with Guile's C interface?
Specifically what does C++ have to do with this?  (Serious question.)

>  * 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 will take a look at this issue soonish, but your help (and Cedric's)
>> in debugging it is most appreciated :)  I would love to keep the union
>> as the "normal" SCM definition, but that might not be possible.
>
> Regardless of the validity, there are popular compilers out there now
> which do not support this, when used in modes people may need or want
> to use.  The installed headers need to adhere to higher standards in
> terms of portability problems and warnings than the library source,
> where we can dictate some of the compiler options.

Agreed.  And AFAIK there are some ABI differences for returning unions
versus returning uintptr_t, so unfortunately it can't be a question of
ifdefs in Guile's C interface, it seems.  I'll work on this, but if you
have any suggestions as to the proper fix, they are most welcome.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/