On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: >> I can compile with the bnd 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://email@example.com/msg04472.html > What about using alloca() ? You already suugested this here (call this "patience"): http://firstname.lastname@example.org/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:email@example.com?subject=Unsubscribe