On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:50:27PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > 1. Fix a build failure on hppa-hpux11.23 due to core dump during configure > > with -luca > > What's wrong with using it on non-IA64 machines? Isn't it supposed > serve the same purpose regardless of the architecture?
Well it is only used on ia64. On pa_risc there is no need for it. The section of code that uses it is in #ifdef __ia64__ #ifdef __hpux in gc.c, it is not needed on pa_risc, and caused a problem for us. > > > 2. Don't detect the non-posix gmtime_r and readdir_r on hpux10.20 > > Does defining `_POSIX_SOURCE' fix it? hpux-10.20 is very old and does not have posix conforming versions of these functions, the versions that it does have are from an earlier posix draft. > > > 3. Fix build error on Tru64 Unix with the DEC compiler, which does not like > > the non-constant expression in case: statements, and on irix which does > > not like the non-constant expression in the initializers in read.c and > > print.c. (yes, I know - yuck). > > But these are constants! I'll look into this again. > > > 4. #define LONG_LONG_MIN and LONG_LONG_MAX id the are not available > > (unfortunately I can not remember which system this was on). > > Eh, can you remember now? :-) No, but perhaps we should just use SCM_I_LLONG_MIN and SCM_I_LLONG_MAX (which I have only just noticed) here. > > > 5. Some older systems have inttypes.h that does not define PRIiMAX. > > OK, I checked it in. > Thanks. > > 6. xlc on AIX 4.3 does not like 'static const char s_scm_hash_fold[];', we > > moved the code around to make it unnecessary. > > Hmm, what does it mean that it doesn't like it? It's valid C, right? > > (It's always annoying to move code around because then it makes it > harder to track the origin of a change, e.g., via `git-blame'.) > Well, after preprocessing the compiler sees something like: static const char s_scm_hash_fold[]; .... <some usage of s_scm_hash_fold> .... static const char s_scm_hash_fold[]="Some string"; And, rightly, I think, complains. By moving the code around it sees: static const char s_scm_hash_fold[]="Some string"; .... <some usage of s_scm_hash_fold> .... And it likes that better :-) > OK, we'll see that later if you don't mind. :-) Ok. Thanks. Peter -- Peter O'Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]