[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head!
From: |
Joe Marshall |
Subject: |
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head! |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:57:03 -0700 |
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Taylor R Campbell <address@hidden> wrote:
> Does the new definition of STRING-HEAD! work when building an x86-64
> LIARC from an i386 LIAR, or is this worked around because those C
> files are thrown out after they're used to build the real ones on the
> target, and because nothing in the compiler (presumably) uses
> STRING-HEAD! ?
I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing that when you cross-compile
from an i386 to an x86-64 that the C files are generated with the expectation
that a 64-bit C compiler will compile them (whether cross compiled from
i386 or native compiled on the target machine).
> Also, why don't we just teach LIAR to open-code
> SET-STRING-MAXIMUM-LENGTH! ?
I can't imagine it is worth the effort and pain. You don't want to build
too much knowledge of object representation into the compiler unless
you really need it. Open coding would save the function call and some
argument shuffling, but you'd still be doing the other work.
--
~jrm
- [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head!, Taylor R Campbell, 2009/09/24
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head!,
Joe Marshall <=
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head!, Chris Hanson, 2009/09/24
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head!, Taylor R Campbell, 2009/09/24
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head!, Chris Hanson, 2009/09/24
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head!, Joe Marshall, 2009/09/24
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head!, Chris Hanson, 2009/09/24
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head!, Taylor R Campbell, 2009/09/24
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] string-head!, Joe Marshall, 2009/09/24