Re: inline (Re: guile: going the way of DEATH)
Craig Kaplan (csk@cs.washington.edu)
Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
> "Jonathan R. Ferro" <jferro@corwin.ece.cmu.edu> writes:
>
> > "Tel" == Telford Tendys <telford@triangle.triode.net.au> writes:
> > Tel> PS: Out of curiosity... [1] how many C compilers really are
> > Tel> currently compatible with guile? (don't say they all are, I won't
> > Tel> believe you!) [2] How many people are not using gcc? Are there
> > Tel> good reasons to not use gcc or is it just what happened to be
> > Tel> available at the time?
> >
> > I can vouch for AIX xlC, which I use because GNU cc/ld cannot create
> > shared libraries on AIX. The guile release (1.2?) that I downloaded a
> > month ago compiles cleanly under xlC (yay!), but SCWM uses additional
> > gcc-isms which I regarded as being unnecessary for the amount of trouble
> > they caused me.
>
> For example? Please let me know about non-portable C constructs in
> Scwm. (I don't doubt that there are some, I just want to get rid of
> them if convenient.)
I think that __FUNCTION__ is gnu-specific. Unfortunaely, __FUNCTION__
appears throughout scwm code, which I can see being a pain. Perhaps
a quick way to fix this would be to have something like
#ifndef __GCC__
#define __FUNCTION__ "unknown_function"
#endif
At the top of a header file included by everyone.
--
Craig. http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/csk/
Counterfactuals: what would the world be like without them?