> From: Taylor R Campbell <campb...@mumble.net> > Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 20:44:36 +0000 > > [...] > > The toolchain necessary to build the system (macro expander, sf, cref, > compiler) should be able to run in a wide variety of host systems, > including many versions of Scheme [...]
A cool branch. It would be nice to more easily reason about who expanded what, but it is not so difficult in 99% of the cases. It would be weird (and wonderful) to boot on another Schemeish, but at what cost? The entire compiler must be written in R3RS? No #!optional arguments or *parser or nutt'n? > [...] The build should furthermore have clear semantics so that we > can get reproducible results in all those different environments. The semantics that RELEASE is our host and NEW-RELEASE our target is clear. That runtime/ is syntaxed with RELEASE's *parser (unless it makes other arrangements) I thought was plain enough. Tough cookies for those who want to use a new *parser operator before it appears in RELEASE, but they can make their arrangements. > I cannot build master on 9.1.1 (again). Is that no longer a priority? > > That is still a priority. It looks like the scaffolding to transition > from a world with SEQUENCE_2 and SEQUENCE_3 to a world with only > SEQUENCE_2 has been dropped, though, which makes this more laborious > than I was hoping it would be... There were more hacks like type-aliases and returns-aliases? > All these errors look familiar, but you did not like my solution, > so... I await enlightenment. > > The anomalous microcode error arises because [ scode/sequence- > immediate-first ] did not exist in the host 9.1.1 runtime. > > If you replace (scode/sequence-immediate-first ...) by (car > (scode/sequence-actions ...)) [...] it gets further still. Further toward what? And what have you done to the compiler source? That's our "native" compiler too. For our native compiler source to function as a cross compiler, the host has to implement the native language. If the host is RELEASE, a little training will do it. If the host is Whatnot, you'll have to start by re-implementing READ to accept "#!optional" and re-defining basic syntax like DEFINE and LAMBDA... > But I think that the resulting make.com, dumped by 9.1.1, still has > SEQUENCE_3 objects embedded in it, which confuses the microcode from > HEAD. However, at that point I ran out of time to look into the > problem further last night. Ya, been there, with a broken debugger. > It may be that using my portable fasdumper with the cross-compiler > will suffice to get this working, because it is guaranteed not to dump > SEQUENCE_3 objects even in a host that uses them in memory. The cross (I can't say portickle) fasdumper would be interesting if it dumped wildly different heap formats: low tags, constants at the start of a compiled code block, supposedly portickle stuff, etc. > It may be that we could persuade the sf and compiler in-tree to use > their own MAKE-SEQUENCE [...] If the cross compiler were linked to a cross runtime (just bits of runtime/), it would have the correct make-sequence. In the well- trained cross runtime, the cross compiler would also get an emulated scode/sequence-immediate-first. > [...] this might be less work than working out any issues that may > arise with a portable fasdumper. A cross fasdumper would trump all issues of heap format. We got lucky again using type-aliases. That only worked because SEQUENCE and SEQUENCE-2 are the same in host and target heaps. We are stuck for word-size and all as long as the cross compiler is dumping host binaries that the target is expected to fasload. > However, I am inclined to say that maybe we ought to cut 9.2 from > commit 96ffae5, from before I made a hash of the top-level makefile; > cherry-pick whatever important changes we've made since then; and > then fix up the build (and perhaps get cross-compilation working as > a first-class citizen!) in HEAD for 9.3. What do you think? Your "hash" finally got the sequence-3's out of the native distribution's .bcis. It turned my 15 minute builds into 45 minute builds, but that's what it takes to compile a cross-compiler, cross-compile a boot-compiler, and compile everything natively. Please keep the hash. I was afraid 9.2 might appear with crap .bcis. If you just revert aab92f7 you can release a VERY nice 9.2 forthwith. I think I'd rather be Schemeing in 3D. _______________________________________________ MIT-Scheme-devel mailing list MIT-Scheme-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mit-scheme-devel
