Mail Archives: cygwin/1997/06/26/07:13:22
"T. Kurt Bond" <tkb AT access DOT mountain DOT net> writes:
> Yes, definitely. How difficult was the port?
Very easy. I didn't even apply the NT patch, just the Linux patch. I
did a little fudging here and there -- one assembler symbol needed an
underscore added, I eliminated the wrapper script and fixed up the
compiler defaults so it could work without it. Changed some filenames
in the makefile from foo to foo.exe. Stuff like that.
I also applied my patches to add CLOS style keywords, access to the
command line arguments and a few other things. Since I made the
binary I've also created patches to change what Scheme->C calls
define-macro to the more conventional define-expander, to change the
standard file extension from ".sc" to ".scm". At some point I'll make
a new binary with these features. (Of course, they may break existing
code in minor ways. But with them you have at least a chance of
compiling the same program with different Scheme compilers.)
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".
- Raw text -