[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Axiom-developer] sbcl and Axiom

From: C Y
Subject: RE: [Axiom-developer] sbcl and Axiom
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:30:57 -0700 (PDT)

--- "Page, Bill" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:20 PM C Y asked:
> > 
> > Question.  I've managed so far to get the boottocl command 
> > more or less working (e.g. most of the boot dir code).
> Good work!


> > It occurrs to me that this might be a waste of time,
> > particularly if the interp directory code contains all of
> > the functionality in boot aside from translating boot code
> > to cl.  I think this is the case but before I throw out my
> > current work - is the boot directory in fact entirely
> > redundant functionality wise?
> > 
> Gee, what could have given you that idea??

The axiom_cmu.tgz archive does not contain the boot directory.  Also,
when trying to load src-pkg.lisp, there appear to be exports which are
in conflict with definitions made in the boot files - I'm not
completely sure about that but some of the errors make me wonder.

> No the boot directory is not redundant.
> Yes you need to compile boot first before you can compile
> anything from interp.

There is however a second option - take the intermediate lisp files
produced in the current "normal" build, and build those directly
without first generating them from the boot files.  I was reluctant to
do that until Axiom formally makes the switch, but the boot translator
appears to do a few non-ANSI things and it will take some digging to
change that.  I can load the boot-strap lisp files in boot (after some
tweaking) but I have not as yet attempted to repeat the cycle by
loading the clisp files produced from that process.  For that cycle to
work automatically, changes at the boot->lisp level are necessary.

> No the interp directory code does not contain all of the
> functionality of boot (nor any of the functionality of boot
> for that matter).

Hmm.  OK :-).

> No what you have been doing so far is not a waste of time.
> However, I think you should be using the make process as
> defined in the current Axiom makefiles first before trying
> to change things in a radical manner.

Since I'm not familiar with make as a tool, I'm trying to keep
everything as much as possible in lisp.  Theoretically the build order
is the key point, at least once I figure out the technical reason for
using multiple images.  Also, once the changes needed to run in sbcl
are made, those pamphlet files should just plug right into the make
process.  During development though, I find asdf a bit more convenient
for lisp loading - I can easily load, for example, the boot subsystem
defined in the boot dir without the rest of the compile proceeding,
then incrementally attempt loading each file from the next step. 
(Currently I'm a bit stalled on interp/sys-pkg.lisp - VMLISP and BOOT
exports appear to be causing a bit of confusion, although it may be I
haven't sorted out what's really going on yet.)  I'm using both the
Makefiles and debugsys.lisp for file orders, so they're definitely
playing a role, and the files themselves should just plug back into
their old spots, once they're working.


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]