[Top][All Lists]

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

compilation pragmas?

From: Massimiliano Gubinelli
Subject: compilation pragmas?
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 09:53:46 +0200

 I noticed that the Tree IL compiler uses an ad-hoc code to check if some 
symbol is dynamically defined by GOOPS, intercepting calls to the 
toplevel-define! function which introduces just a new definition in the current 
module. In TeXmacs we need some similar dynamics definition mechanism and I get 
a lot of compiler warnings since the Tree IL analyser does not recognise my 
definitions. Of course I have the option to redefine  toplevel-define! like 
GOOPS does, but I’m worried of possible name clashes. Another possibility would 
be to introduce some “compiler pragma” support in the Tree IL compiler so that 
it can have annotations which can then be ignored when producing more lower 
lever code. In this way one could make the mechanism of suppressing particular 
warnings (e.g. possibly undefined symbols) independent of hacks specific only 
to certain libraries and provide more orthogonal features. Does it sounds 
reasonable? I could try to hack it down but I would like to discuss first 
possible design issues, I’m new to guile compiler.

Best regards,
Massimiliano Gubinelli

reply via email to

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