From: Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Other Cheney-MTA systems?
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:29:38 +0100
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 07:23:41PM -0500, John Tobey wrote:
Hi all,
Anyone know of an active project or system other than Chicken that uses the
machine's stack in
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 02:26:42PM +0100, Felix wrote:
Another language implementation using this method is not known to me,
which is a pity. That may be caused because doing it this way is so
unorthodox and because CPS compilers have become unfashionable.
What is used instead of CPS nowadays?
Peter Bex scripsit:
What is used instead of CPS nowadays?
The typical view is that it's more important to optimize normal calls
and returns than calls to escape procedures, so a stack is used and then
copied when call/cc is invoked. Chicken allocates stack frames on a
first-generation heap,
Thanks for the replies.
I am imagining a calling convention, usable in C via
__attribute__((...)), that does not preserve the caller's stack
pointer. I imagine that compiled Chicken code would interact well
with C using this convention. Been working a little (er, about 100
hours) on it. For
John Tobey scripsit:
I am imagining a calling convention, usable in C via
__attribute__((...)), that does not preserve the caller's stack
pointer.
Normally, what is preserved is the frame pointer and the return address.
You can suppress the frame pointer in gcc using the option
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
John Tobey scripsit:
I am imagining a calling convention, usable in C via
__attribute__((...)), that does not preserve the caller's stack
pointer.
Normally, what is preserved is the frame pointer and the return
Hi Hans
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:18:40 -0500 Hans Nowak zephyrfal...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been wondering for a while what the optimal workflow is when
working with Chicken (or most other Schemes, for that matter). I
suspect that the way I develop Chicken code is too much like how I use
