Re: typedef void * SCM

[Ken Raeburn <raeburn at raeburn dot org>]

Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:
> * are efficient transparent unions available?  (Ken Raeburn was looking
>   at providing these for gcc.  I don't exactly know what their current
>   semantics are, but from the discussion I assume they will provide the
>   desired type safety.)
> 
>   --> typedef union { long n; } __attribute__ ((transparent_union)) SCM;

I was, but haven't followed through, I'm afraid.

Passing a transparent union should be okay, I think, but returning one
still incurs the performance hit.  I was supposed to be looking into
making the return sequence deal with transparent unions efficiently
too.  I did start on the necessary changes; I should update my tree
and finish them....

Ken