What about ./configure --enable-racket=`which racket` ?
Already needed and used for cross-compilation.


On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:00:21 +0200, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:

I'm not sure how difficult it will be. It's tedious enough that the
last time I thought about it, I just left a note next to
"no-cgc-needed" in "racket/src/racket/Makefile.in", but maybe it's
worth pursuing now.

At Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:39:55 -0700, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
How difficult would it be to allow the bootstrap process to use a
preexisting Racket installation? This would alleviate some of the
performance loss, for example in rebuilds by developers or in continuous

On Aug 11, 2014 11:16 PM, "Matthew Flatt" <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:

> I've changed the Racket CGC implementation --- which is mostly used
> only to build the normal Racket variant --- to use SGC by default,
> instead of the Boehm GC. The intent of the switch is to make the more
> portable GC the default.
> If you have an existing build in a repo checkout, then `make` is likely
> to fail, because the makefile dependencies are not precise enough to
> deal with the switch. You can discard your old build directory, or it
> might work to simply delete
>   <builddir>/racket/libmzgc.a
> If you're using CGC and want to continue using the Boehm GC, then
> provide `--disable-sgc` to `configure`. I've tuned SGC to bring its
> performance closer to the Boehm GC, but it's still slower.
> _________________________
>   Racket Developers list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
  Racket Developers list:

Tobias Hammer
DLR / Robotics and Mechatronics Center (RMC)
Muenchner Str. 20, D-82234 Wessling
Tel.: 08153/28-1487
Mail: tobias.ham...@dlr.de
 Racket Developers list:

Reply via email to