Re: port of xml-rpc to Chicken 5
Hi, On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 07:36:21 +0200 Peter Bex wrote: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:41:30PM -0700, Chris Brannon wrote: >> Mario Domenech Goulart writes: >> >> > Just double-checking to avoid misunderstandings: have you contacted >> > Peter Bex (maintainer of the egg for CHICKEN 4) about taking over the >> > maintenance of xml-rpc? >> >> Hi Mario, >> I'm sorry; I should have been more explicit about that. Peter was the >> one who gave me the idea: >> >> "I would of course accept a patch to port XML-RPC to C5, >> but I'm not using it anymore, so if you'd like to take over maintainership >> that >> would be even more excellent :)" > > Yeah, that was my idea :) Ok, perfect! I've added it to the coop. Thanks Chris for taking over the development of the egg. All the best. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario
Re: Chicken 5 compilation, coerced inexact literal number warning. What am I missing here?
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:42:39PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > There is a .h file in hostinfo and I didn't catch the error message. > Presumably that somehow put the compiler into fixnum mode. hm, if possible could you figure out what exactly did that? A C header file shouldn't change the compiler's mode! Glad to hear you figured out how to solve the issue though! Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Chicken 5 compilation, coerced inexact literal number warning. What am I missing here?
Thanks Peter. That helped. I'm not certain but I think it was where I had put hostinfo egg from chicken 4 into a subdir and was including it. There is a .h file in hostinfo and I didn't catch the error message. Presumably that somehow put the compiler into fixnum mode. Now on to the next porting challenge :) On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:20 PM Peter Bex wrote: > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 09:37:32PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > > This one I sort of understand but it does seem annoying: > > > > Warning: coerced inexact literal number `9e+99' to fixnum > > > 848859130765266355329578537025198862586562510896759102769772101980841694466750283776 > > I don't get this, unless I use -fixnum-arithmetic. The message > is a bit misleading because that number is (obviously) not a fixnum. > However, if I compile it and I get that warning, it errors out with > > Error: [internal compiler error] bad immediate (prepare) > > This makes sense because that's not a fixnum. Maybe something we > could "fix" by making the number overflow, or something. > > > but the following I don't understand: > > > > This line: > > (define megatest-version 1.6584) > > > > generates this warning: > > Warning: literal is out of range - will be truncated to integer: 1.6584 > > I don't get that unless I compile with -fixnum-arithmetic. > > > But a small test program works fine: > > > > $ cat testit.scm > > (module testit > > * > > (import scheme) > > (define abc 1.2345) > > ) > > > > (import testit) > > (print (/ abc 2)) > > $ csc testit.scm > > $ ./testit > > 0.61725 > > If I compile that as "csc -fixnum-arithmetic testit.scm" I get the > same warning and it prints zero. If I compile it without flags, > I get the expected output, like you. > > Cheers, > Peter > -- -- Complexity is your enemy. Any fool can make something complicated. It is hard to keep things simple. - Richard Branson.
Re: port of xml-rpc to Chicken 5
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:41:30PM -0700, Chris Brannon wrote: > Mario Domenech Goulart writes: > > > Just double-checking to avoid misunderstandings: have you contacted > > Peter Bex (maintainer of the egg for CHICKEN 4) about taking over the > > maintenance of xml-rpc? > > Hi Mario, > I'm sorry; I should have been more explicit about that. Peter was the > one who gave me the idea: > > "I would of course accept a patch to port XML-RPC to C5, > but I'm not using it anymore, so if you'd like to take over maintainership > that > would be even more excellent :)" Yeah, that was my idea :) Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: port of xml-rpc to Chicken 5
Mario Domenech Goulart writes: > Just double-checking to avoid misunderstandings: have you contacted > Peter Bex (maintainer of the egg for CHICKEN 4) about taking over the > maintenance of xml-rpc? Hi Mario, I'm sorry; I should have been more explicit about that. Peter was the one who gave me the idea: "I would of course accept a patch to port XML-RPC to C5, but I'm not using it anymore, so if you'd like to take over maintainership that would be even more excellent :)"
Re: port of xml-rpc to Chicken 5
Hi Chris, On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 19:53:32 -0700 Chris Brannon wrote: > I'm taking over maintenance of the xml-rpc egg. > I've ported it to Chicken 5. > The .release-info file is here: > https://the-brannons.com/cgit/cgit.cgi/chicken-xml-rpc/plain/xml-rpc.release-info Just double-checking to avoid misunderstandings: have you contacted Peter Bex (maintainer of the egg for CHICKEN 4) about taking over the maintenance of xml-rpc? All the best. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario
Re: Chicken 5 compilation, coerced inexact literal number warning. What am I missing here?
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 09:37:32PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > This one I sort of understand but it does seem annoying: > > Warning: coerced inexact literal number `9e+99' to fixnum > 848859130765266355329578537025198862586562510896759102769772101980841694466750283776 I don't get this, unless I use -fixnum-arithmetic. The message is a bit misleading because that number is (obviously) not a fixnum. However, if I compile it and I get that warning, it errors out with Error: [internal compiler error] bad immediate (prepare) This makes sense because that's not a fixnum. Maybe something we could "fix" by making the number overflow, or something. > but the following I don't understand: > > This line: > (define megatest-version 1.6584) > > generates this warning: > Warning: literal is out of range - will be truncated to integer: 1.6584 I don't get that unless I compile with -fixnum-arithmetic. > But a small test program works fine: > > $ cat testit.scm > (module testit > * > (import scheme) > (define abc 1.2345) > ) > > (import testit) > (print (/ abc 2)) > $ csc testit.scm > $ ./testit > 0.61725 If I compile that as "csc -fixnum-arithmetic testit.scm" I get the same warning and it prints zero. If I compile it without flags, I get the expected output, like you. Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: PGP signature
