Vanuxem Grégory wrote:
Hello,
I have uploaded a version of Axiom built on top of SBCL for Windows (32
bits).
Interesting! Not being a Windows user I can't check this out directly,
but it is good news.
I have a couple of questions concerning how this has been accomplished,
although they may be premature:
1. You mentioned Juergen Weiss's CMUCL port - did you alter that code
to run on SBCL or use the techniques there as a guide and convert one of
the other trees?
2. Did you change the boot/SPAD compilers to output SBCL compliant lisp
code, or hand tweak the lisp code produced by the "regular" compile?
Back when I took a run at SBCL + Axiom, one of the points that became
quickly clear was that short of carrying through with a complete
conversion of all boot code to lisp (a long term goal at the moment) or
simply living with hand tweaked translator output for a large number of
files at least the boot compiler and possibly the spad compiler would
need to be adjusted to output ANSI lisp. I was able to just about load
the stand-alone bootstrap boot->lisp system after some tweaking, but I
didn't carry much further than that.
Gaby has proceeded much deeper into the BOOT world than I was ever able
to and the presence of old and new BOOT (shoe?) adds a rather unexpected
twist. The prospect of fixing BOTH variations to output correct code is
not a particularly enjoyable one. My hope was that the new BOOT (shoe)
was the stand alone code in the boot directory, which I suspect would be
somewhat simpler to get working as the first step in getting sbcl to
support the complete build chain as it exists today in GCL.
Gaby, did SHOE ever reach a point where it could convert all of the
Axiom BOOT code to lisp? I recall there being a couple of different
conventions between BOOT and SHOE but I don't remember the conclusion -
can the conversion be made?
Cheers,
CY
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
