[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing.
From: |
Peter Keller |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing. |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:56:16 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2i |
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:21:14AM +0200, felix wrote:
> Absolutely. It's a pain, even if you know the code-generation scheme
> by heart. One could add special calls to `C_trace()' for FFI-procedure
> invocations. Would that help? Any ideas are welcome.
Well, you could emit a big comment at the top the of file that gives
the mappings from human readable functions to machine generated
functions. That way, you don't increase the code size or change the
backend much, but give something which is definitely useable with
(hopefully) minimal code change.
-pete
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., (continued)
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., Peter Keller, 2002/07/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., Anthony Carrico, 2002/07/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., Peter Keller, 2002/07/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., Anthony Carrico, 2002/07/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., Peter Keller, 2002/07/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., Anthony Carrico, 2002/07/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., Anthony Carrico, 2002/07/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., Peter Keller, 2002/07/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., Peter Keller, 2002/07/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., felix, 2002/07/09
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing.,
Peter Keller <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] More on aliasing., felix, 2002/07/09