Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: >> Byte-compilation, I guess. I seem to recall that Guile 2 uses >> primitive-eval to run code that is not byte-compiled, and this loses >> the location information. Generally speaking, running code without >> compilation seems to be preserved for the sake of eval but not >> well-supported at all. Try 'make bytecode'. > > Thanks. I noticed two issues. > > * The compilation output says, for example, > > ``` > ;;; compiling > /home/wl/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/lily/graphviz.scm > ;;; compiled > /home/wl/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-8-3.A/home/wl/lilypond/scm/graphviz.scm.go > ``` > > This is strange: What does '2.2-LE-8-3.A' mean?
2.2 would likely be the major version, LE little endian, 8 could be the cell size and, well, whatever. Basically the path encodes the details of the bytecode architecture, and then the source path. > Why do I get two paths concatenated? Because the first path indicates the architecture and involved executable, and the second path indicates the source path of the compiled file. > Additionally, the `.go` files are put into > `/home/wl/lilypond/scm/out` > > * `make install` doesn't install `.go` files. I seem to remember that > this was discussed... I now wonder how to proceed with an installed > LilyPond version. I don't even want to venture a guess here but someone else might. -- David Kastrup