[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gcl-devel] Re: binutils subtree removed
From: |
Gabriel Dos Reis |
Subject: |
[Gcl-devel] Re: binutils subtree removed |
Date: |
Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:21:37 -0500 |
Camm Maguire <address@hidden> writes:
| Greetings!
|
| Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> writes:
|
| > One question: does compiler::*default-system-p* still control whether
| > the built GCL uses a copy of its C header file from its image or from
| > its system directory? It is extremely convenient to be able to use GCL,
| > `built on the fly as part of building AXIOM' without having to install it
| > permanently on the target system.
| >
|
| Indeed, I think the typical usage for distros is to maximize
| modularization, and for 'build it yourselfers', to maximize
| convenience. Its not a bad compromise to support both in many cases.
| And in the modern era, there are far fewer pure lisp enthusiasts than
| parties interested in a good CAS.
agreed.
| I've removed the binutils subdir, as there are no machines now where
| it is needed.
Fantastic! This also means that GCL would benefit from newer linkers
such as Gold.
| Native object location is ubiquitous save for the
| following linux systems, still using dlopen:
|
| ia64
| hppa
| arm (thumb) (i.e. Ubuntu, not Debian)
| ppc64 (no known distro)
|
| Building with an external bfd library is still supported. The default
| configure option has been moved to custreloc.
OK.
| (To recap for those who might have missed earlier discussions, I had
| thought that bfd would eventually allow gcl to offload the difficult
| code relocation part in a portable manner. In following the
| development for many years, this never panned out. I've managed to
| implement what we need myself in a few weeks. Live and learn.)
A recent discussion I had with Ian Lance Taylor suggested that BFD is
something I should avoid, unless it is absolutely necessary.
| But this leaves the question of the gmp4 directory. Tim once told me
| he would have to include it if I removed it, for the convenience
| reasons you mention above. I'm not really sure what I think here. A
| lisp system must implement mp, so it is not illogical for its source
| to include this code somewhere. The older, no longer supported mp
| files are still present. But it is a separate project, and a hassle
| to keep current.
|
| My current suggestion is to leave it in at least for 2.6.8.
I agree. This is an area we can and should revisit after 2.6.8 is
released.
-- Gaby
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: open-axiom builds on mingw32, (continued)
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: open-axiom builds on mingw32, Gabriel Dos Reis, 2010/11/03
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: open-axiom builds on mingw32, Camm Maguire, 2010/11/03
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: open-axiom builds on mingw32, Gabriel Dos Reis, 2010/11/03
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: open-axiom builds on mingw32, Camm Maguire, 2010/11/03
- [Gcl-devel] Re: open-axiom builds on mingw32, Gabriel Dos Reis, 2010/11/27
- [Gcl-devel] 2.6.8 ...., Camm Maguire, 2010/11/03
- [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 ...., Gabriel Dos Reis, 2010/11/04
- [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 ...., Camm Maguire, 2010/11/04
- [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 ...., Gabriel Dos Reis, 2010/11/04
- [Gcl-devel] binutils subtree removed, Camm Maguire, 2010/11/04
- [Gcl-devel] Re: binutils subtree removed,
Gabriel Dos Reis <=
- [Gcl-devel] Re: [open-axiom-devel] binutils subtree removed, Andrey G. Grozin, 2010/11/05
- [Gcl-devel] Re: [open-axiom-devel] binutils subtree removed, Camm Maguire, 2010/11/05
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.8 ...., Matt Kaufmann, 2010/11/04
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: open-axiom builds on mingw32, Camm Maguire, 2010/11/03
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: open-axiom builds on mingw32, Gabriel Dos Reis, 2010/11/03
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: open-axiom builds on mingw32, Camm Maguire, 2010/11/03
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: open-axiom builds on mingw32, Gabriel Dos Reis, 2010/11/03