[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: (object (*)()) vs (long (*)())

From: Camm Maguire
Subject: Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: (object (*)()) vs (long (*)())
Date: 02 Aug 2002 18:32:29 -0400

Greetings!  OK, you convinced me!  I'm uploading now...

Take care,

Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:

> Camm Maguire <address@hidden> writes:
> |> Greetings, and thanks for your *very helpful* reply!
> |> 
> |> OK, now it is clear to me what is going on.  I calling all functions
> |> through a variable declared to return a pointer, and some functions
> |> are returning a long.
> |> 
> |> I can fix the instances in the existing code fairly easily, but the
> |> issue is that the lisp compiler produces C code using these
> |> interchangeable declarations.  At some point, I need to either have
> |> all compiled functions return the same union and use the existing
> |> function link helper functions (in funlink.c, et.al.), or to duplicate
> |> these functions to handle function variables returning long and modify
> |> the compiler to use these in the correct instances instead.  As
> |> always, the implementation is much easier than the conception of the
> |> proper solution.  Comments most welcome.
> The only proper solution is to make all functions use the same signature,
> and cast the return value at the call site.  Otherwise you will get
> problems on other architectures as well.
> Andreas.
> -- 
> Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, address@hidden
> SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 N├╝rnberg
> Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
> "And now for something completely different."

Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]