[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133
From: |
Felix Winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133 |
Date: |
Sun, 29 Jun 2014 20:34:24 +0200 (CEST) |
From: Peter Bex <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:55:10 +0200
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 05:39:35PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm not convinced we need separate loading and importing either, as long
>> > as it doesn't interfere with separate compilation. Right now everyone
>> > always ends up doing (use ...) anyway. Perhaps Felix can show us an
>> > example where only an import (no loading of code) is useful, or otherwise
>> > how I'm missing the point?
>>
>> Static linking? Having several modules (library units) in a single
>> library (as in libchicken itself)?
>
> As far as I understand, if you statically link a program which contains
> a (use foo) clause, you can link it together with foo.a, and it won't
> try to load anything dynamically. Is that correct?
No, it will try to load "foo.so" dynamically. Some builtin library
units are treated as a special case.
felix
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133, (continued)
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133, Peter Bex, 2014/06/28
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133, John Cowan, 2014/06/26
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133, Oleg Kolosov, 2014/06/27
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133, Peter Bex, 2014/06/28
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133, Felix Winkelmann, 2014/06/28
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133, Peter Bex, 2014/06/29
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133,
Felix Winkelmann <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133, Peter Bex, 2014/06/29
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133, Felix Winkelmann, 2014/06/30