[gnutls-dev] Starting Guile integration

[Simon Josefsson]

ludovic.courtes at laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi,
>
> Just a quick reply before I actually look into the details (either later
> today or next week).
>
> Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org> writes:
>
>> In the future, do you want to develop things in your git repository, and
>> ask me to pull things in when ready?  I think that would work well, if I
>> can figure out which command I should be using for reviewing the changes
>> before committing them.
>
> Yes, that's how we could do.  Alternatively, I could use
> `git-format-patch' and send the resulting messages to the list but as I
> said, that may introduce some undesirable overhead.
>
> My understanding is that `git-fetch' allows remote changes to be fetched
> locally without being actually integrated (and committed) locally.
> Then, it should be possible to find the latest remote commit ID in
> `.git/refs/remotes' and use that with `git-diff'.  And finally, one
> should be able to `git-merge' to actually merge the changes locally.
>
> This is a bit vague, and that's because I haven't actually tried it.  ;-)
> I'll report back when I have better experience.

Once you have something in your public repository that I should merge,
I'll try it.

>>>   * Code in `guile/src' doesn't want to be compiled with
>>>     `-Wstrict-prototypes'.  Since adding `-Wno-strict-prototypes'
>>>     doesn't annul the effect of `-Wstrict-prototypes', I'm afraid we'll
>>>     have to remove `-Wstrict-prototypes' at the project level (i.e, in
>>>     `configure.in'), and add it to `CFLAGS' in sub-directories where it
>>>     makes sense.
>>
>> Ouch.  What is the reason the code needs this?  Maybe we can fix that
>> problem instead.  It seems to build for me now, though, with warnings,
>> but I'd rather have warning messages than potentially hiding other
>> problems.
>
> That's because Guile contains this declaration:
>
>   SCM scm_c_define_subr (const char *name, long type, SCM (*fcn)());
>
> This function allows C code to bind C function FCN to the Scheme level
> under NAME.  It makes perfect sense to have FCN declared this way,
> because FCN can have any number of arguments (its number of required,
> optional and "rest" arguments are specified as part of TYPE).
>
> I can't think of a better way to declare FCN.  Requiring users to cast
> their functions to, e.g., `SCM (* fcn) (void)', is not an option.  At
> any rate, should a fix be found for Guile, it won't be available until
> the next Guile release.

I can't think of a better solution right now.  Still, do the warnings
cause any real harm?  I'd rather not drop -Wstrict-prototypes if the
advantage of doing so would be to just hide some warnings.  Did you try
changing the order of -Wno-strict-prototypes to see if you really can't
negate the effect of the other parameter?

> I'll take care of the other issues you mentioned later on.

Thanks!

/Simon