On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:16:57 +0200 Ralph Möritz <ralph.moer...@outlook.com> wrote:
> 2. Why do we manually have to set C::*COMPILE-IN-CONSTANTS* to T? Some compilers have difficulty with large C constant strings, such that ECL had to append the data to the fasl files instead, but I thought that this problem was mainly a Visual C++ limitation (perhaps it's no longer the case if *COMPILE-IN-CONSTANTS* now works for you)? I admit having to myself enable this as part of my build scripts, as it's no problem with GCC and it's friendlier to binutils. I guess that at ECL build time, if autoconfiguration can reliably test for this limitation, it'd be possible to have it default to T with compilers that support large string constants? > 3. A command-line switch like Gambit-C's -exe to build an EXE from Lisp code > would be nice :) Does "ecl -o <executable> -link <objects>" work? I personally have no experience with ECL on Windows though. -- Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Central: Instant, anywhere, Remote PC access and management. Stay in control, update software, and manage PCs from one command center Diagnose problems and improve visibility into emerging IT issues Automate, monitor and manage. Do more in less time with Central http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein12331_d2d _______________________________________________ Ecls-list mailing list Ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecls-list
