Re: [Chicken-users] Macros and loading compiled code

[Richard]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:05:43 -0700
Daniel Leslie <address@hidden> wrote:

> I think you need to define the import library when building both
> test.scm and test.import.scm. If I do so, your test works:
> 
> address@hidden:~$ csc -s test.scm -j test
> address@hidden:~$ csc -s test.import.scm -j test
> address@hidden:~$ csi
> 
> CHICKEN
> (c) 2008-2014, The Chicken Team
> (c) 2000-2007, Felix L. Winkelmann
> Version 4.9.0 (rev 3f195ba)
> linux-unix-gnu-x86-64 [ 64bit manyargs dload ptables ]
> compiled 2014-06-02 on yves (Linux)
> 
> #;1> (import test)
> ; loading ./test.import.so ...
> ; loading /var/lib//chicken/7/chicken.import.so ...
> #;2> (a-macro 1 2)
> 3
> #;3>
> 
> -Dan
> 
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Richard <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:01:54 -0700
> > alex <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I defined a macro. I compiled it separately and built it into my
> > > main program. When my main program calls the load procedure on
> > > normal Scheme source files, the procedures in these files use the
> > > macro without complaint.
> > >
> > > However, when it loads the dynamic object code created from
> > > compiling those same source files, I get an error about an
> > > "unbound value" in a subexpression of a macro expression. This
> > > seems to be because the macro expressions are being evaluated as
> > > normal procedure applications. If I insert the macro definition
> > > verbatim into each source file before I compile it, the errors do
> > > not occur.
> > >
> > > I tried passing both the source file and the macro definition
> > > file as input to the compiler. The errors remain.
> > > What else can I do to ensure that the dynamic object code knows
> > > about the macro definition?
> > >
> > > --Alex
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Chicken-users mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
> >
> > Try wrapping a module around the code to be compiled separately.
> > Compile it using the '-j <module-name>' flag then compile the
> > generated scheme file: <module-name>.import.scm
> >
> > $ cat test.scm
> >
> > (module test
> > *
> > (import chicken scheme)
> >
> > (define-syntax a-macro
> >   (syntax-rules ()
> >     ((_ l r) (+ l r))))
> >
> > (define (a-function l r)
> >   (+ l r))
> >
> > )
> >
> > compile like so:
> > $ csc -s test.scm -j test
> > $ csc -s test.import.scm
> >
> > use it like so:
> > $ csi
> > #;1> (load "test.so")
> > #;2> (import test)
> > #;3> (a-function 1 2)
> > 3
> > #;4> (a-macro 1 2)
> > 3
> >
> > I hope this is useful to you,
> > greetings,
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chicken-users mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
> >

Hello Dan,

From the docs:

 -j -emit-import-library: MODULE write compile-time module information
 into separate file

It does not seem logical to me why you need that "-j test" for the
second compilation. On my computer it works without.

Richard

ps. the (load "test.so") in my previous message was unneeded.