In article <1d5d51400909090803n4c4d5b7ewba9dfe0573d02...@mail.gmail.com>,
Fernan Bolando <fernanbola...@mailc.net> wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Greg Comeau<com...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <1d5d51400909080844q1bee4c3s114ccc5e51ce5...@mail.gmail.com>,
>> Fernan Bolando <fernanbola...@mailc.net> wrote:
>>>...error: initializer is not a constant: F0_Prelude_46primLeave
>>>--h file ---
>>>#define VAP_TAG =A01
>>>#define WORDSHIFT =A05
>>>#define WORDSIZE =A0 (1<<WORDSHIFT)
>>>#define WORDMASK =A0 (WORDSIZE-1)
>>>#define NS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (WORDSIZE>>3)
>>>#define ZAP_BIT =A0 =A0(1L<<(WORDSIZE-1))
>>>-- c file ----
>>>unsigned F0_Prelude_46primLeave[] =3D {
>>> =A0CAPTAG(FN_Prelude_46primLeave,1)
>>>#ifdef PROFILE
>>>, useLabel(PROF_primLeave)
>>>, 0
>>>, 0
>>>, 0
>>>#endif
>>
>> The initializers to some things need to be constants.
>> In your case, it appears that either CAPTAG or useLabel (or both)
>> have ended up not being #define'd. =A0Probably the header they are
>> #define'd in is not being #include'd (you don't show it above,
>> but then you don't show enough of your code to even reproduce it).
>>
>> On a relate note, you can see the results of preprocessing
>> from pcc by using the -E and/or -P options, that way you
>> can see whether the macro ended up getting substituted
>> and what it was substituted to -- or not in your case.
>> Some compilers also have options which will emit the trail of
>> files #include'd but I don't see that option for pcc.
>
>gcc happily compiles a definition like
>#define CT_v249 ((void*)startLabel+464)
>
>is it valid just to add to make the porting non-destructive?
>
>#ifdef Plan9
>#define void unsigned char
>#endif
It could be however, two issues:
1) I don't see how this has anything to do with the original problem
(so I assume it doesn't).
2) There are other uses of void where doing that may not be what you
want it to be:
void foo(void);
becomes:
unsigned char foo(unsigned char);
doubtful this is your intent for either the argument list or
return value.
However, it may or may not make sense for you to typedef a type
that is either void * or char *. You don't make it clear what
problem is being solved by your question though, so it's unclear
if offering these ideas are just solutions looking for (non)problems
or not :)
Also, re non-destructive, it's unclear what you mean?
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.10.1 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?
