Re: Configuration failure on Linux/SBCL

Raymond Toy wrote:
>>>>>>"Robbie" == Robbie Sedgewick <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> 
>     Robbie> Either way, I think it would be nice to remove the matlisp's build
>     Robbie> dependence on make (to make libmatlisp.so) and replace it with a more
>     Robbie> sophisticated mk:defsystem or asdf system definition.  But that is
>     Robbie> project for another day.
> 
> I had a defsystem definition that could compile all code in matlisp,
> including the Fortran code.  This was easy.  The hard part is figuring
> out the calling conventions and naming conventions of the Fortran
> compiler, which is what configure is used for.  (We don't currently
> check the calling conventions, I think, but we should.)

Yeah, I agree with what you are saying.  As much as I don't like 
configure, there is really no other portable way to get that 
information.  So we are stuck with configure, but is there any reason 
not to use your defsystem code to do the compiling of the fortran in 
matlisp by default?  And remove the makefile from the picture?

--Robbie


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click