ASDF distinguishes image-op from program-op. The former is supposed to create an image from which you can resume development. The latter is supposed to create a self-contained executable application that can hopefully be delivered with minimal additional support files (depending on the implementation). Both invoke dump-image (or create-image, on ECL & co), but with slightly different options.
I admit that CMUCL has fallen completely out of my cache, because it requires a 32-bit compiler for dumping executables, and recent Linux distributions don't bother with that anymore. I remember it had command-line issues, but I thought they were resolved, and you could *somehow* access unprocessed arguments if you used :process-command-line nil. If not, I'd say that's a bug to be resolved with the CMUCL maintainer, if still active. program-op should definitely disable print-herald, and it should definitely disable CMUCL's processing of -eval flags. image-op should probably preserve the herald and processing of -eval flags. It need not use :executable t though that might confuse poor cl-launch. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. — Winston Churchill On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Elias Pipping <pipping.el...@icloud.com> wrote: > Dear list, > > from within a REPL, oftentimes, you can save the current status and create a > file that’ll allow you to continue where you are now at a later point in > time. This file could be a standalone executable or a core file that requires > a lisp environment to run (e.g. via `lisp -core …`). > These two cases can be subdivided into four overall use cases. > > (exe-repl) When the executable is run, you want it to print a banner and take > you to a REPL. Maybe you’ve created this file after applying a patch to your > lisp and you don’t want to do that over and over again. > (exe-application) You’ve created an executable that should not print a banner > and run an entirely new main() function. > > (core-repl) Analogous to the exe-repl case, but smaller at the cost of > requiring a lisp to run > (core-application) Analogous to the exe-application case (not sure if anyone > does this). > > The function `uiop:dump-image` can be used to create images, where ‘image’ is > an umbrella term for both standalone executables and cores. With :executable > t, it creates the former; with :executable nil, the latter. The image is only > told whether we want a REPL or application type image once it’s run and > uiop:restore-image hands control over to what uiop:*image-entry-point*. > > That seems to work for some lisps, but for CMU CL it does not. CMU CL’s > save-image provides options like > > :process-command-line t/nil > :print-herald t/nil > > Whether the herald/banner is printed on startup is decided when save-image is > called. It cannot be changed later. If you’re writing an application with a > main method, and you don’t pass :print-herald nil, the banner will be printed > before your application does anything else. If you want to read a list of > options and arguments from the command line in your main method, this will > not work if you passed :process-command-line nil to save-image, since then > the command line arguments will be frozen (i.e., equal what they were when > you called save-image). > > This suggests that for uiop:dump-image to cover relevant use cases on CMU CL, > it will have to learn about the repl/application distinction, e.g. by growing > another option. > > I’ve created a sample application that illustrates this and put it here(*): > > https://github.com/pipping/cl-echo > > echo.lisp does what its name suggests: It tells you what it is that you > passed to it. If I want to create an exe-application type image from it, on > sbcl e.g. that’ll work with uiop:dump-image and I can even use asdf’s > program-op (please see build.lisp for how) > > For CMU CL, (uiop:dump-image :executable t) and asdf's program-op do > something that I do not want: They leave the command line arguments frozen so > that the resulting executable does not return what I want it to. I need > something that’s different from what asdf’s program-op in build.lisp does (in > particular, not pass :process-command-line nil), as is shown in > build-cmucl.lisp. > > Were I to pass :print-herald nil with :executable t in uiop:dump-image on CMU > CL, I’d make the exe-application case work as expected but not the exe-repl > case. Hence my claim that we need a new option. > > If we add another option to dump-image, the question is how asdf's image-op > and program-op should behave (here, the word image refers to core files only, > as far as I can tell). Will we need new options here, too? If so, what should > the defaults be? > > This write-up is the result of a conversation with Robert. Thanks again, > Robert! > > I’d welcome feedback. > > > Elias > > (*) The current version at the time of this writing is > > > https://github.com/pipping/cl-echo/tree/faea91b6aa14ea81f2130edef3f6abccbd5fa176 > > so if my notes don’t seem to make any sense, please give that revision a try.
