[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] Postscript: (Reading binary files)

From: John Cowan
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Postscript: (Reading binary files)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:02:54 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Siegfried Gonzi scripsit:

> I think I have chicken 64 bit now on my mac os x leopard. Now lets
> see how stable it is on my binar files. BUT: silly question: is this
> normal behavior among the chicken compiler that it spots errors at
> first at runtime? I bluntly copied some matrix benchmarks over from
> my old Bigloo (btw. cannot install it on Leopard ayone here who has
> Bigloo on Leopard please drop me a note) and leaved fx*, fx+ operators
> in the code. However, the chicken compiler did not complain and produced
> foo.out but complaint at runtime.

The Chicken compiler assumes that undefined names will be defined in the
interpreter, in the library, or in other compiled code, so it does not
complain about them.

In any case, Chicken provides fx+ and fx*, so the problem must have
been something else.

John Cowan    address@hidden
There are books that are at once excellent and boring.  Those that at
once leap to the mind are Thoreau's Walden, Emerson's Essays, George
Eliot's Adam Bede, and Landor's Dialogues.  --Somerset Maugham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]