On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Ralph Möritz wrote:
> I don't think 64k is such a severe limitation; for code using very
> long string literals couldn't we use embedded resources instead?
>
64k is pretty small for many libraries out there that build tons of data.
cl-unicode used to be one of tho
> Sorry, my name is Juanjo, not Franjo :-)
Apologies, no disrespect intended.
> Regarding compile-in-constants, I think you guys do not know the real
> history. Microsoft's compiler has a severe limitation in compiler
> string size. This means we cannot build constant data that takes more
> than
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ralph Möritz wrote:
> Re. #2, I don't really mind what ECL does with large constant strings
> behind the
> scenes, the point is that ECL *knows* which compiler it's using so it
> *could* do whatever is necessary such as setting *COMPILE-IN-CONSTANTS* or
> passing th
On 8 November 2012 11:45, Matthew Mondor wrote:
[...]
> For the library paths, on ELF systems RPATH can be used (such that the
> runtime linker knows where to look for libraries without extra
> configuration) and ECL is supposed to automatically link objects with
> the required ECL library. Then
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 04:45:22 -0500
Matthew Mondor wrote:
> For the library paths, on ELF systems RPATH can be used (such that the
> runtime linker knows where to look for libraries without extra
> configuration) and ECL is supposed to automatically link objects with
> the required ECL library. Th
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:04:47 +0200
Ralph Möritz wrote:
> Re. #2, I don't really mind what ECL does with large constant strings behind
> the
> scenes, the point is that ECL *knows* which compiler it's using so it *could*
> do whatever is
> necessary such as setting *COMPILE-IN-CONSTANTS* or passi
ne.net
> To: ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Ecls-list] Building native EXE on Windows is too hard!
>
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:16:57 +0200
> Ralph Möritz wrote:
>
> > 2. Why do we manually have to set C::*COMPILE-IN-CONSTANTS* to T?
>
> Some compilers h
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:16:57 +0200
Ralph Möritz wrote:
> 2. Why do we manually have to set C::*COMPILE-IN-CONSTANTS* to T?
Some compilers have difficulty with large C constant strings, such that
ECL had to append the data to the fasl files instead, but I thought
that this problem was mainly a Vis
Hi Franjo & all!
back in July I started playing around with ECL with the goal of building a
chess engine in Lisp. Back then I battled to get ECL to compile an EXE on
Windows for a simple "hello world" program. You can read about my experience
here: http://lispetc.posterous.com/chess-part-0-of-n
