[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...)
From: |
Peter Keller |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...) |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:49:23 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:34:48PM +0000, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
> The load form gets compiled, but it only gets executed in runtime.
> That is, the code in the load'ed file will be interpreted (assuming
> the load'ed file is a Scheme code file; you could also load shared
> objects).
>
> For example, if you compile a file with ???(load "foo.scm")??? and run it,
> it will complain about missing ???foo.scm??? at runtime, not compile time.
I see.
So, in the case of compiling two files, one having (declare (uses x))
and the other (declare (unit x)) and compiling with two separate
commands (as in the manual), how does Chicken share the knoweldge about
what functions to call in unit x?
like:
csc -c foo.scm
csc -c bar.scm
csc bar.o scm.o -o a.out
How does the user of x know the name of the function in unix to invoke to
the linker gets it right?
Thank you.
-pete
- [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), Peter Keller, 2007/06/07
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), Alejandro Forero Cuervo, 2007/06/07
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...),
Peter Keller <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), Alejandro Forero Cuervo, 2007/06/07
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), Peter Keller, 2007/06/07
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), Graham Fawcett, 2007/06/07
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), Graham Fawcett, 2007/06/07
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), Peter Keller, 2007/06/07
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), Graham Fawcett, 2007/06/07
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), Peter Keller, 2007/06/08
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), John Cowan, 2007/06/08
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), John Cowan, 2007/06/07
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] (load ...), Alejandro Forero Cuervo, 2007/06/07