This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: guile bugs
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb at red-bean dot com>
- Subject: Re: guile bugs
- From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn at raeburn dot org>
- Date: 25 Sep 1999 22:33:15 -0400
- Cc: scwm-discuss at SCWM dot MIT dot EDU, guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <qrru2oyxtr7.fsf@elwha.cs.washington.edu> <199909141442.JAA17962@vh213601.truman.edu> <qrraeqpy0pl.fsf@elwha.cs.washington.edu> <199909141624.LAA19039@vh213601.truman.edu> <qrrlna9w5az.fsf@elwha.cs.washington.edu> <199909142309.SAA01374@vh213601.truman.edu> <qrrvh9bu8rp.fsf@elwha.cs.washington.edu> <m34sgvcttc.fsf@savonarola.red-bean.com> <qrrvh9bl8ix.fsf_-_@elwha.cs.washington.edu> <86g10e7ur2.fsf@localhost.uni-trier.de> <tx17llnlgb8.fsf@raeburn.org> <m3k8peiz5b.fsf@savonarola.red-bean.com>
Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> writes:
> Unfortunately, transparent unions are still *returned* using the
> conventions for unions. Which will definitely hurt performance.
Oops. Yeah, I guess people would want to return SCM objects
efficiently, wouldn't they?
> Ken, if I asked the EGCS folks about it, and they approved in
> principle, would you be able to write a patch for GCC to make it
> return, as well as pass, transparent unions as if they had the type of
> the union's first element?
Sure.
It's an incompatible change, though for a case I've never heard of
anyone actually using before; there might be resistance. (I'd guess
glibc and linux would be the most likely "offenders".) And this isn't
what transparent unions were intended for in the first place; they
were supposed to deal with library routines like `wait'. But if this
sort of unusual use is "blessed", the return convention change would
make a certain amount of sense.