On Jun 30, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Joel J. Adamson wrote:
Did you notice anything else amiss with my compilation commands?
If you just want to make a dynamically loadable library, it seems somewhat perverse to ignore the built-in support for building dynamically loadable libraries in gsc and not to define a file "all.scm" that contains simply
(include "file1.scm") (include "file2.scm") ...
and then
% gsc
(compile-file "all") (load "all")
unless you have a special reason (i.e., you need to link an external library). Alternately, you can
% gsc
(compile-file "file1") (load "file1")
...
And if you're using gcc your CCOPTS (a) don't include " -fwrapv -fno- strict-aliasing", which are needed for correctness and (b) have no optimization options ("-O1" and a few others are best, not -O2 or - O3) and no -D___SINGLE_HOST.
All these things are taken care of automatically when use use the "compile-file" gambit command, or just
% gsc all
or % gsc file1 % gsc file2 ...
I've seen a number of posts to this mail list where people don't want to use this built-in machinery for building dynamically loadable files, but I don't understand why.
Brad