Re: GNU Mes 0.26 released

[Janneke Nieuwenhuizen]

Simon Tournier writes:

Hi Simon,

> On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 at 13:50, Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> wrote:

[..]

> A naive question. :-)  I was randomly roaming and I have seen, for
> example, in file module/mescc/x86_64/as.scm:
>
> ;; AMD
> (define (x86_64:function-preamble info . rest)
>   `(("push___%rbp")
>     ("mov____%rsp,%rbp")
>     ("sub____$i32,%rbp" "%0x80")
>     ,@(list-head
>        '(("mov____%rdi,0x8(%rbp)" "!0x10")
>          ("mov____%rsi,0x8(%rbp)" "!0x18")
>          ("mov____%rdx,0x8(%rbp)" "!0x20")
>          ("mov____%rcx,0x8(%rbp)" "!0x28")
>          ("mov____%r8,0x8(%rbp)" "!0x30")
>          ("mov____%r9,0x8(%rbp)" "!0x38"))
>        (length (car rest)))))
>
> ;; traditional
> (define (x86_64:function-preamble info . rest)
>   `(("push___%rbp")
>     ("mov____%rsp,%rbp")))
>
> And my question is: the procedure name is exactly the same therefore how
> is the correct one picked?

Yeah, standard scheme, the last definition wins.  It isn't exacly the
cleanest possible style/way of "commenting-out" code.

> Thanks for all this!

Happy to :)

Greetings,
Janneke

-- 
Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>  | GNU LilyPond https://LilyPond.org
Freelance IT https://www.JoyOfSource.com | Avatar® https://AvatarAcademy.com