Re: inline (Re: guile: going the way of DEATH)

[csk@cs.washington.edu (Craig Kaplan)]

> "Jonathan R. Ferro" <jferro@corwin.ece.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> > "Tel" == Telford Tendys <telford@triangle.triode.net.au> writes:
> > Tel> PS: Out of curiosity... [1] how many C compilers really are
> > Tel> currently compatible with guile? (don't say they all are, I won't
> > Tel> believe you!)  [2] How many people are not using gcc? Are there
> > Tel> good reasons to not use gcc or is it just what happened to be
> > Tel> available at the time?
> > 
> > I can vouch for AIX xlC, which I use because GNU cc/ld cannot create
> > shared libraries on AIX.  The guile release (1.2?) that I downloaded a
> > month ago compiles cleanly under xlC (yay!), but SCWM uses additional
> > gcc-isms which I regarded as being unnecessary for the amount of trouble
> > they caused me.
> 
> For example?  Please let me know about non-portable C constructs in
> Scwm.  (I don't doubt that there are some, I just want to get rid of
> them if convenient.)

I think that __FUNCTION__ is gnu-specific.  Unfortunaely, __FUNCTION__
appears throughout scwm code, which I can see being a pain.  Perhaps
a quick way to fix this would be to have something like

	#ifndef __GCC__
	#define __FUNCTION__ "unknown_function"
	#endif

At the top of a header file included by everyone.

-- 
Craig.              http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/csk/
Counterfactuals: what would the world be like without them?