Jeronimo Pellegrini

I have run "make check" in commit 20940b8 (did git pull today 2023-03-21), and all tests seem to pass.

Some tests fail in SBCL, but do work when calling the Maxima REPL

Hello! As discussed in the mailing list, it seems that this is also related: (%i80) printf(true,"~10<~m~>~%",[a,b,c]); `printf': arguments exhausted. -- an error. Ok, so I can't use the ~m formatting directive inside ~<...~> So I guess Maxima requires ~; (%i81) printf(true,"~10<~;~m~>~%",[a,b,c]); ((MLIST SIMP) $A $B $C) Hm, it printed the internal Lisp representation of the list. And using ~a instead of ~m gives the same result. I was expecting that the output with the ~m directive would be [a,...

the extra semicolon there seems to be wrong Unless the number of dimensions is actually ignored by the COMMON statement. Then the actual code would just skip the commas and always return 2 as the number of dimensions, which would not be used later. I don't know if this is the case.

I'm sorry, for some reason I misread something in your original report. I thought the code did not had the comma, and the compiler was suggesting to add it. It is the opposite. I guess the comma should not be there. line_skip_seperator is defined in bwb_int.c, and it calls function buff_skip_seperator, which has this comment: /* skip the next non-space character in 'buffer' if it is a seperator (comma, semicolon, or colon). if successful then 'position' is updated past the character and returns the...

I guess the compiler got it wrong. The code is counting commas in "DIM(,,,)". And if the formatting changed, it would be inconsistend with the rest of the code (which uses the opening brace in the next line) What compiler issued that warning?

Makefile clean target does not remove renum

Fix gcc warnings for renum.c