On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote:
>> I can compile with the bnd[99] trick, until some better idea is found.
>
> Oh! Does this mean that you allocate 99 entries on each call? This expoldes 
> the
> stack size :) And still might be too small if you e.g. 'apply' a longer list 
> to
> a function.

Indeed, that's what you explained here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/picolisp@software-lab.de/msg04472.html

> What about using alloca() ?

You already suugested this here (call this "patience"):
http://www.mail-archive.com/picolisp@software-lab.de/msg04465.html
but now I feel more confident in trying to implement it.
llvm has an alloca in its Intermediate Repr:
http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#alloca-instruction
Still not sure if it maps to the C alloca.

>> In the Makefile, could we have
>> 2a) «CC=gcc» at the top of the file, then $(CC) instead of gcc in the
>> rest of the file?
>
> You are right! I will change that.

Thanks.

>> 2b) «%.o : %.c» instead of «.c.o»
>
> I never saw that. Is it portable? And what is it needed for?

It's a way to specify wildcards.
Sorry, I thought that my version was more mainstream.
I nevertheless find it more readable.

I could find some occurences here (please search for "%.o"):
https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html
but couldn't find a dedicated section.

>> 3) Questions about tests
>>
>> 3a) About picoLisp64 now, is there a prefered way to test everything ?
>> `pil test/*.l` ? or something similar ?
>
> The entry point is @lib/test.l. See the comments about local and global usage 
> at
> the beginning of that file.

OK.

>> 3b) Would it be nice to have a `test` target in the Makefile ?
>
> I don't see that very useful.

It could at least serve as documentation (see my previous question!).

>> 3c) Are there somewhere tests for miniPicoLisp ?
>
> Unfortunately not ... :)

I'll try to maintain some for 2017.

Thanks.


chri
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to