search

Conservatory / s7

s7 Scheme
54 stars 7 forks source link

it will not build with msvc (vs2013) #1

Open fragrans opened 7 years ago

fragrans commented 7 years ago

error C2129: static function 'unsigned char is_decodable(s7_scheme *,s7_pointer)' declared but not defined I checked the source code, apparently it is marked out by C MACRO.

kfogel commented 7 years ago

Can you give more details of what you were trying to build & what the build process was? s7 is just a .c and .h file, by default. But there's the s7webserver/ subdirectory -- were you trying to build that?

I see the #ifndef _MSC_VER that you're talking about in s7.4, line 73390. And I see the call in g_object_to_let(), which is not conditional on that preprocessor definition. My guess is that the s7 authors don't spend much time testing on Microsoft Windows and that's how this slipped through. I'm not sure where to file a bug report though -- can you figure out a good place to tell the maintainers, from looking at the upstream s7 and/or Snd pages?

kfogel commented 7 years ago

Also, could you check and see if they fix it in their tarball? We can update here if they do. We could also fix it directly here, but I'm very reluctant to make any divergence from upstream; the Conservatory is never supposed to be the master copy -- and this is even more true when there is active upstream maintenance, even though it's not happening in a public version-control repository.

fragrans commented 7 years ago

But this repository does get attentions. There are now 11 watchers. ;) I will file this issue to their mail list.

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/snd/ ftp://ccrma-ftp.stanford.edu/pub/Lisp/

Thanks, fragrans

kfogel commented 7 years ago

Hi, @fragrans. Yeah, this is a thing that keeps happening with the Conservatory: we end up becoming a focal point for discussion & bug reports about some project, because the project's upstream isn't providing any clear, socially obvious nudge toward a more appropriate forum.

Maybe you could point the maintainers to this thread, so they see there might be some value in setting up real project infrastructure around s7? It doesn't have to change how they do development -- there's no obligation to accept pull requests, respond to bug reports, etc -- but at least this way they wouldn't be letting inbound information drop on the floor.