Subject: Re: [R] compiling R-0.90.0 on alpha-dec-osf4.0
From: Kurt Hornik (Kurt.Hornik@ci.tuwien.ac.at)
Date: Mon 29 Nov 1999 - 02:22:30 EST
>>>>> Prof Brian D Ripley writes:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Kurt Hornik wrote:
>> Albrecht Gebhardt had the same bug report a few days ago. I don't quite
>> understand what is going on. configure checks (via AC_C_CONST) whether
>> `const' works fine. If not, it defines const as empty in Rdefines.h.
>> This in turn gets included in all of our source files. So how can it
>> happen that const is empty in one place and not in another?
> Look in gram.c:
> #ifndef __cplusplus
> #ifndef __STDC__
> #define const
> comes before the forward declaration and the definition. We have ANSI
> compilers, so this does not happen to us.
> I don't know how to tell bison to behave!
I know :-)
In bison-xy/src/output.c, replace the unconditional
/* Make "const" do nothing if not in ANSI C. */
fprintf (ftable, "#ifndef __cplusplus\n#ifndef __STDC__\n#define const\n#endif
by something more useful :-)
But seriously, what is going on here? Autoconf says
- Macro: AC_C_CONST
If the C compiler does not fully support the keyword `const',
define `const' to be empty. Some C compilers that do not define
`__STDC__' do support `const'; some compilers that define
`__STDC__' do not completely support `const'. Programs can simply
use `const' as if every C compiler supported it; for those that
don't, the `Makefile' or configuration header file will define it
so how can we deal with the situation where __STDC__ is not defined by
the compiler but `const' still works?
One solution would be to mimic Bison's rule in addition to the autoconf
magic, so that we define const as empty when __STDC__ is not defined,
even if const works.
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To: firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue 04 Jan 2000 - 14:16:11 EST