[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The relationship between SCM and scm_t_bits.
From: |
Paul Jarc |
Subject: |
Re: The relationship between SCM and scm_t_bits. |
Date: |
Wed, 05 May 2004 10:58:51 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> wrote:
> I haven't looked myself but I think that STRICTNESS == 2 wont put
> SCM values into registers or something.
Ah, ok. Well, that depends on the compiler - maybe more recent
compilers are better with this. (Though we still have to think about
older ones too for a while.) The definition of SCM for STRICTNESS ==
2 also has the advantage that an SCM object can be accessed through an
scm_t_bits* pointer.
> Isn't there the added advantage with level 2 that it doesn't accept
> SCM values in conditions?
Oops, right. I had only been thinking of getting a diagnostic when
using one type where the other specifically was expected -
assignments, function arguments, etc.
> Yes, to all. We need it to store arbitrary pointers for smobs. When
> you define a new smob type, you get to decide what to do with the
> words of the smob cell: you can use them for SCMs, or for anything
> else that fits into a SCM.
Hmm. A union including void* would be perfect, if not for the
register problem.
paul
Re: The relationship between SCM and scm_t_bits., Marius Vollmer, 2004/05/10
Re: The relationship between SCM and scm_t_bits., Dirk Herrmann, 2004/05/15
Re: The relationship between SCM and scm_t_bits., Dirk Herrmann, 2004/05/15