From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2003-02-17 11:34:46
|
Sam writes: > > Should it be C89 or C99. As I said, I'm not a big C expert but I > > gather from my lurking on comp.lang.c that even today C99 compilers > > aren't entirely common. (Though gcc may be one?) > > C99. Agreed. Those who don't have a C99 compiler can install gcc-3.2.1, or use an older version of clisp if they don't want to. > You will need to do the following: > > 1. comments. > utils/comment5.c will translate that for you. > unfortunately, it will translate > > # a > # b > # c > > into > > /* a */ > /* b */ > /* c */ > > instead of > > /* a > b > c */ > > M-x d-mode-convert-comment RET and > M-x d-mode-convert-block-comment RET are your friends. Note that C99 also supports the // style comments (as in C++). Choose whichever style you like better. > # UP: explanation [what the heck "UP" stand for?! something in German, > # I guess!] It means "Unterprogramm", i.e. "subroutine" or "function" in English. > 7. take a long look at lispbibl.d and replace CLISP-specific uint32 &c > with C99 uint32_t &c. Yes but keep uintL as a separate typedef. It is not impossible that we would want to use uintL == uint64_t on 64-bit machines in the future. Also you can rename uintB to uchar_t - because it denotes an unsigned char. Bruno |