[Chicken-users] chicken-bind generates incorrect code to initialise arrays inside structs

[Markus Maunus]

I have the following in a test header:

struct FunkyFrizzle

{

    int integer;

    float submarine;

    char string[64];

};

typedef struct FunkyFrizzle FunkyFrizzle;

double int_exp(double base, int pow);

double square(double v);

The code generated by chicken-bind appears to treat "string" as a plain pointer rather than an actual array, however:

;;; GENERATED BY CHICKEN-BIND FROM test.h

(begin

  (define FunkyFrizzle-integer

    (foreign-lambda*

      integer

      (((c-pointer (struct "FunkyFrizzle")) s))

      "return(s->integer);"))

  (define FunkyFrizzle-submarine

    (foreign-lambda*

      float

      (((c-pointer (struct "FunkyFrizzle")) s))

      "return(s->submarine);"))

  (define FunkyFrizzle-string

    (foreign-lambda*

      c-string

      (((c-pointer (struct "FunkyFrizzle")) s))

      "return(s->string);"))

  (define make-FunkyFrizzle

    (foreign-lambda*

      (c-pointer (struct "FunkyFrizzle"))

      ((integer integer) (float submarine) (c-string string))

      "struct FunkyFrizzle *tmp_ =  (struct FunkyFrizzle *)C_malloc(sizeof(struct FunkyFrizzle));\ntmp_->integer = integer;\ntmp_->submarine = submarine;\ntmp_->string = string;\nreturn(tmp_);;\n"))

  (begin

    (define int_exp

      (foreign-lambda*

        double

        ((double a0) (integer a1))

        "return(int_exp(a0 , a1));")))

  (begin

    (define square

      (foreign-lambda* double ((double a0)) "return(square(a0));"))))

;;; END OF FILE

As you can see, in make-FunkyFrizzle it attempts to assign into the array (tmp_->string = string). This of course causes the C compiler to shout profanities at me.

Is there a "proper" fix for this? I assumed that this would have been caught already if it's a bug, but Google failed me there (I'm new to both scheme and chicken.) I know I could just change the code by hand, but that feels all icky and kludgy.

Also, foreign-lambda* documentation [at wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Accessing%20external%20objects] states that one should use the C_return macro rather than just plain return; is there an actual reason for using normal return here ir is this indeed an oversight?