On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Raymond Toy <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> "Fare" == Far <Far> writes: > > Fare> In this case, either dump-image should accept separate :executable > and > Fare> :standalone arguments, and/or use :executable executable on CMUCL, > and > Fare> :init-function restore-image > Fare> only when standalone. Backward compatibility is a bitch, whereby > Fare> :executable should default to T where practical, and :standalone > Fare> default to executable where executable-p. Ugh. I hate backward > >> > >> As it stands now, it seems that with cmucl only executable images can > >> be created. That seems not right. > >> > >> I'm willing to break backward compatibility for asdf and cmucl, > >> in this one case. :-) I doubt many people use executable images; I > >> rarely do and when I do it's mostly for testing. > >> > Fare> dump-image was initially stolen from cl-launch, which for > Fare> cross-implementation compatibility reasons and simplification in > user > Fare> experience *really* prefers having to deal with only one file, i.e. > an > Fare> executable image, than having to deal with many, e.g. an executable > Fare> and separate core. > > Fare> Why can't cmucl use the correct gcc -m32, etc., flags, that will > make > Fare> it work out of the box on ubuntu, etc.? > > I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure it uses gcc -m32. Of course, > this only works if you have the 32-bit development environment > installed. I suspect most people don't, including you. It works for > me, but I have the 32-bit dev environment installed so I can build > cmucl. > Oh, and indeed, after I apt-get install libc6-dev-i386 it works.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org No one can make you feel inferior without your consent — Eleanor Roosevelt But you're only fooling yourself if you can't recognize your superiors — #f
