[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil -- et al. ?
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil -- et al. ? |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:23:09 +0100 |
On 25 Feb 2011, at 13:42, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> $ guile-config compile
>> -D_THREAD_SAFE -I/usr/local/include/guile/2.0 -I/usr/local/include
>
> The -I/usr/local/include is added for some other library that Guile
> depends on -- GMP or libgc or something else.
>
> For example on my system I have Guile installed into /opt/guile, and
> libgc and everything else in /usr, and I get:
>
> $ guile-config compile
> -pthread -I/opt/guile/include/guile/2.0
I do not know why it is added.
>>> The problem this thread is about is if you have Guile 1.8 or previous
>>> eheaders installed in /usr.
>>
>> The directory /usr/local/include/ is added by the compiler. So
>> possibly, if one has the 1.8 header, it will be included even when
>> using `guile-config compile`.
>
> Depends on your system, I think.
But I checked that it is not needed for reading the gmp.h header which is in
/usr/local/include/.
The funny thing is that it is the Apple tweaked GCC and /usr/local/ is not
added when installing the system or (I think) the developer package.
> But yes, this is a danger. Hopefully
> it won't be as "dangerous" when we live in a 2.0+-only world. I have
> been meaning to write an article or FAQ about /usr/local, and this is a
> good point.
It might be viewed as a problem with 'make install' which does not remove the
header from 1.8. I'm not sure if it is possible to have that and 2.0 both
installed. At least the manual is overwritten.
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil ?, (continued)
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil ?, Hans Aberg, 2011/02/22
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil ?, Ken Raeburn, 2011/02/22
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil -- et al. ?, Bruce Korb, 2011/02/23
- scm_listofnull, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/02/23
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil -- et al. ?, Ken Raeburn, 2011/02/24
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil -- et al. ?, Bruce Korb, 2011/02/24
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil -- et al. ?, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/25
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil -- et al. ?, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/25
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil -- et al. ?, Hans Aberg, 2011/02/25
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil -- et al. ?, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/25
- Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil -- et al. ?,
Hans Aberg <=
Re: SCM_BOOL_T became #nil ?, Mark H Weaver, 2011/02/22