mirror of
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git
synced 2025-05-20 11:40:18 +02:00
a66480374e
From Ken Raeburn:
The Mac build off of "master" fails for me currently in srfi-13.c,
with the comparison-always-false warning Greg discussed. I hacked
around that, but then guile-readline doesn't build:
Making all in guile-readline
../libguile/guile-snarf -o readline.x ../../guile-readline/readline.c
-
DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I../../guile-readline/.. -I../../guile-
readline/lib -I./lib -g -O2
In file included from ../../guile-readline/readline.c:29:
../../guile-readline/../libguile.h:25:17: error: gmp.h: No such file
or directory
In file included from ../../guile-readline/../libguile.h:95,
from ../../guile-readline/readline.c:29:
../../guile-readline/../libguile/strings.h:26:21: error: uniconv.h: No
such file or directory
Neither the path specified for libgmp nor the path specified for
libunistring at configure time is included here.
I don't think any of this is Mac-specific; I'm surprised that it works
on GNU/Linux systems. Perhaps I'm building it in ways that are
unusual for the other developers (build dir != src dir, libgmp and
guile-1.8 installed in the same place, libgmp and libunistring
installed in different nonstandard directories)?
If I use CPPFLAGS=... and LDFLAGS=... instead of --with-libfoo-prefix
configure options to specify paths to find libgmp and libunistring,
the tests still pick old, installed Guile headers (which this time
I've poisoned to highlight the problem) from those locations instead
of the in-tree versions:
Making all in test-suite
Making all in standalone
../../libguile/guile-snarf -o test-asmobs-lib.x ../../../test-suite/
standalone/test-asmobs-lib.c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
-I. -I../../../test-suite/ standalone -I../.. -I/opt/local/include
-I/Users/raeburn/dev/guile/ libunistring-0.9.1/I/include -g -O2
-I../../.. -I../../../lib -I../../ lib -I../..
In file included from /opt/local/include/libguile.h:30,
from ../../../test-suite/standalone/test-asmobs-
lib.c:23:
/opt/local/include/libguile/__scm.h:3:2: error: #error Poison!
I might be building Guile as part of a larger package
(*cough*Emacs*cough*) that wants to include stuff from the same system
directories (e.g., for MacPorts, pkgsrc, whatever) where an old
version of Guile is installed, and thus Guile gets passed CPPFLAGS/
LDFLAGS settings that add that old version to the search paths. So I
think the CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS version needs to be made to work, as well
as the --with-libfoo-prefix version.
With the attached patch, I can get guile to build with CPPFLAGS= and
LDFLAGS= ... someone more familiar than I am with automake will have
to fix the guile-readline stuff.
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| standalone | ||
| tests | ||
| ChangeLog-2008 | ||
| guile-test | ||
| lib.scm | ||
| Makefile.am | ||
| README | ||
This directory contains some tests for Guile, and some generic test support code. To run these tests, you will need a version of Guile more recent than 15 Feb 1999 --- the tests use the (ice-9 and-let*) and (ice-9 getopt-long) modules, which were added to Guile around then. For information about how to run the test suite, read the usage instructions in the comments at the top of the guile-test script. You can reference the file `lib.scm' from your own code as the module (test-suite lib); it also has comments at the top and before each function explaining what's going on. Please write more Guile tests, and send them to bug-guile@gnu.org. We'll merge them into the distribution. All test suites must be licensed for our use under the GPL, but I don't think I'm going to collect assignment papers for them. Some test suite philosophy: GDB has an extensive test suite --- around 6300 tests. Every time the test suite catches a bug, it's great. GDB is so complicated that folks are often unable to get a solid understanding of the code before making a change --- we just don't have time. You'll see people say things like, "Here's a fix for X; it doesn't cause any regressions." The subtext is, I made a change that looks reasonable, and the test suite didn't complain, so it must be okay. I think this is terrible, because it suggests that the writer is using the test suite as a substitute for having a rock-solid explanation of why their changes are correct. The problem is that any test suite is woefully incomplete. Diligent reasoning about code can catch corner conditions or limitations that no test suite will ever find. Jim's rule for test suites: Every test suite failure should be a complete, mysterious surprise, never a possibility you were prepared for. Any other attitude indicates that you're using the test suite as a crutch, which you need only because your understanding is weak.