Re: [gnutls-dev] Starting Guile integration

[Ludovic Courtès]

Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

>> 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.

No, the warnings don't cause any harm by themselves, but it's annoying
to get warnings for things that are intentional and harmless.

> Did you try changing the order of -Wno-strict-prototypes to see if you
> really can't negate the effect of the other parameter?

No I didn't, but it wouldn't be convenient.  Currently,
`guile/src/Makefile.am' adds `-Wno-strict-prototypes' to the
`libxxx_CFLAGS' but those are appended to `CFLAGS' rather than
prepended.

I'll try to see if I can hack around something else but I'm not very
hopeful...

Thanks,
Ludovic.