On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
> (c:install-bytecodes-compiler) does not exists, it's only planned for
> future, right?
>
Sorry, I mixed the package names: it is EXT and it was not exported. I just
uploaded a fix.
Juanjo
--
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serra
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
> So maybe the question is, whether it is possible to enforce bytecode
> compiler even
> if lisp-to-c compiler is abalable
>
(c:install-bytecodes-compiler) replaces all Common Lisp functions with the
bytecode version one -- no part of ECL w
31.05.2012, 13:04, "Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll"
:
> In principle, (load "sys:cmp") used to do the trick, but that seems like a
> hack. Hence, I will add a new function, C:INSTALL-C-COMPILER, to do the job.
If I didn't (load "sys:cmp") and do not call C:INSTALL-C-COMPILER, can I be
sure it's not u
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
> Is it possible to enable lisp-to-c compiler, compile something, than switch
> to bytecode compiler, compile some files and load some file, than switch
> back?
> (I saw that (require :cmp) loads lisp-to-c compiler, but is it possible to
> s
[better version of the letter - fixed some typos]
Juan Jose, could you explain or point to docs about the right way to deal with
two compilers?
Supposing ECL is build with ECL_CMP = 1 both compilers are included, right?
Is it possible to enable lisp-to-c compiler, compile something, than switch
