Re: monolithic-lib-op

[Stelian Ionescu]

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Florian Margaine  wrote:
> > After speaking a bit with jackdaniel on irc, it seems that the issue is
> > correctly writing the .a files? If so, since it's a simple ar archive, this
> > could be done in Lisp. I wrote an ar writer in less than 100 lines with some
> > hard coded values:
> > https://github.com/ralt/deb-packager/blob/master/src/ar.lisp
> >
> > The format is basically: a global header followed by the entries. (Entries
> > format is relatively straightforward, I invite you to look at the code.)
> >
> > I think it would be pretty straightforward to implement the reader in Lisp
> > to manually add .o files to the end of the .a archive. (Basically, add new
> > entries at the end of the archive.)
> >
> > Maybe I haven't fully understood the issue though. In that case, you can
> > fully ignore me :-)
> >
> Well, *if* we move that code from CFFI (my current branch of it) to
> ASDF (post 3.1.6 release),
> that's about 300 more lines to add to ASDF (and probably even more
> lines to support 10 additional implementations).
> I don't know whether or not we want that, and if we do, whether 100 or
> 200 additional lines for ar support are OK.
> Maybe we could require libtool when running on BSD. Meh.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea to bundle libtool with CFFI.

-- 
Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
http://common-lisp.net/project/iolib

Re: monolithic-lib-op

[Daniel Kochmański]

I've mistakenly taken this thread as one on the ecl-devel - please
ignore direct ECL references.

Regards,
Daniel

Daniel Kochmański writes:

> Faré writes:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Daniel Kochmański  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Faré writes:
>>>
 Difficulties making monolithic-lib-op portable suggest that it (and
 maybe also lib-op) should output an object file as if by ld -r rather
 than a static library. Indeed, there is no *portable* way to combine
 several .a files into a single one on a BSD system (including MacOS
 X). Or should that be the case only on said systems?
>>>
>>> We have currently bug regarding combining static libraries[1], but doesn't
>>> BSD nor OSX support libtool? If yes, then we can just extract all
>>> objects from static archive and combine them again.
>>>
>>> [1] https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/issues/177
>>>
>>> In one of the comments @Whimse provides a working solution using
>>> libtool.
>>>
>> Do you require libtool to be installed on BSD (including OSX)?
>> It certainly doesn't come standard, not even on Linux.
>
> It is at least dependency at ECL compilation time (bdwgc requires
> it). It isn't that unreasonable to require it for C backend.
>> Also, I could never get libtool to work correctly, even on Linux,
>> despite having alleged cut-and-paste recipes and a man page.
>
> @Whimse claims it works just OK for him. I'll have to adjust it to play
> nice with cross-compilation framework I'm working on now.
>>
>> I was thinking about MRI scripts, but they are also a GNUism not
>> supported on BSD.
>>
>> Why do we need a .a rather than a .o, anyway?
>> For the proposed use case, a .o seems more reasonable.
>
> That's what we do - we combine .o files. But Sometimes we want to
> combine with already built static libraries. That's when such approach
> would be necessary. Mentioned bug affects only such situations. If you
> just do monolithic build from lisp lisp sources then there's not a
> problem.
>>
>> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• 
>> http://fare.tunes.org
>> Director is a misnomer. You're a hoper. You put all these people together and
>> you hope it all works out.  — Frank Oz, director of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"

-- 
Daniel Kochmański | Poznań, Poland
;; aka jackdaniel

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

Re: monolithic-lib-op

[Florian Margaine]

Hi,

After speaking a bit with jackdaniel on irc, it seems that the issue is
correctly writing the .a files? If so, since it's a simple ar archive, this
could be done in Lisp. I wrote an ar writer in less than 100 lines with
some hard coded values:
https://github.com/ralt/deb-packager/blob/master/src/ar.lisp

The format is basically: a global header followed by the entries. (Entries
format is relatively straightforward, I invite you to look at the code.)

I think it would be pretty straightforward to implement the reader in Lisp
to manually add .o files to the end of the .a archive. (Basically, add new
entries at the end of the archive.)

Maybe I haven't fully understood the issue though. In that case, you can
fully ignore me :-)

Regards,
Florian

Le 6 oct. 2015 07:50, "Daniel Kochmański"  a écrit :
>
>
> Faré writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Daniel Kochmański 
wrote:
> >>
> >> Faré writes:
> >>
> >>> Difficulties making monolithic-lib-op portable suggest that it (and
> >>> maybe also lib-op) should output an object file as if by ld -r rather
> >>> than a static library. Indeed, there is no *portable* way to combine
> >>> several .a files into a single one on a BSD system (including MacOS
> >>> X). Or should that be the case only on said systems?
> >>
> >> We have currently bug regarding combining static libraries[1], but
doesn't
> >> BSD nor OSX support libtool? If yes, then we can just extract all
> >> objects from static archive and combine them again.
> >>
> >> [1] https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/issues/177
> >>
> >> In one of the comments @Whimse provides a working solution using
> >> libtool.
> >>
> > Do you require libtool to be installed on BSD (including OSX)?
> > It certainly doesn't come standard, not even on Linux.
>
> It is at least dependency at ECL compilation time (bdwgc requires
> it). It isn't that unreasonable to require it for C backend.
> > Also, I could never get libtool to work correctly, even on Linux,
> > despite having alleged cut-and-paste recipes and a man page.
>
> @Whimse claims it works just OK for him. I'll have to adjust it to play
> nice with cross-compilation framework I'm working on now.
> >
> > I was thinking about MRI scripts, but they are also a GNUism not
> > supported on BSD.
> >
> > Why do we need a .a rather than a .o, anyway?
> > For the proposed use case, a .o seems more reasonable.
>
> That's what we do - we combine .o files. But Sometimes we want to
> combine with already built static libraries. That's when such approach
> would be necessary. Mentioned bug affects only such situations. If you
> just do monolithic build from lisp lisp sources then there's not a
> problem.
> >
> > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection•
http://fare.tunes.org
> > Director is a misnomer. You're a hoper. You put all these people
together and
> > you hope it all works out.  — Frank Oz, director of "Dirty Rotten
Scoundrels"
>
> --
> Daniel Kochmański | Poznań, Poland
> ;; aka jackdaniel
>
> "Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
>

Re: monolithic-lib-op

[Faré]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Florian Margaine  wrote:
> After speaking a bit with jackdaniel on irc, it seems that the issue is
> correctly writing the .a files? If so, since it's a simple ar archive, this
> could be done in Lisp. I wrote an ar writer in less than 100 lines with some
> hard coded values:
> https://github.com/ralt/deb-packager/blob/master/src/ar.lisp
>
> The format is basically: a global header followed by the entries. (Entries
> format is relatively straightforward, I invite you to look at the code.)
>
> I think it would be pretty straightforward to implement the reader in Lisp
> to manually add .o files to the end of the .a archive. (Basically, add new
> entries at the end of the archive.)
>
> Maybe I haven't fully understood the issue though. In that case, you can
> fully ignore me :-)
>
Well, *if* we move that code from CFFI (my current branch of it) to
ASDF (post 3.1.6 release),
that's about 300 more lines to add to ASDF (and probably even more
lines to support 10 additional implementations).
I don't know whether or not we want that, and if we do, whether 100 or
200 additional lines for ar support are OK.
Maybe we could require libtool when running on BSD. Meh.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
Superstition brings bad luck. — Saul Gorn

Re: monolithic-lib-op

[Daniel Kochmański]

Faré writes:

> Difficulties making monolithic-lib-op portable suggest that it (and
> maybe also lib-op) should output an object file as if by ld -r rather
> than a static library. Indeed, there is no *portable* way to combine
> several .a files into a single one on a BSD system (including MacOS
> X). Or should that be the case only on said systems?

We have currently bug regarding combining static libraries[1], but doesn't
BSD nor OSX support libtool? If yes, then we can just extract all
objects from static archive and combine them again.

>
> In any case, that's ugly, and to make a distinction, we'd have to
> extend os.lisp to also distinguish bsd-style unix from gnu-style unix.
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
> It is said that pragmatism trumps ideology in a crisis. What actually happens
> in a crisis, certainly in this one, is that the ruling party gets to
> rechristen its ideology as pragmatism. — Christopher Caldwell

[1] https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/issues/177

In one of the comments @Whimse provides a working solution using
libtool.

-- 
Daniel Kochmański | Poznań, Poland
;; aka jackdaniel

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

Re: monolithic-lib-op

[Daniel Kochmański]

Faré writes:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Daniel Kochmański  
> wrote:
>>
>> Faré writes:
>>
>>> Difficulties making monolithic-lib-op portable suggest that it (and
>>> maybe also lib-op) should output an object file as if by ld -r rather
>>> than a static library. Indeed, there is no *portable* way to combine
>>> several .a files into a single one on a BSD system (including MacOS
>>> X). Or should that be the case only on said systems?
>>
>> We have currently bug regarding combining static libraries[1], but doesn't
>> BSD nor OSX support libtool? If yes, then we can just extract all
>> objects from static archive and combine them again.
>>
>> [1] https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/issues/177
>>
>> In one of the comments @Whimse provides a working solution using
>> libtool.
>>
> Do you require libtool to be installed on BSD (including OSX)?
> It certainly doesn't come standard, not even on Linux.

It is at least dependency at ECL compilation time (bdwgc requires
it). It isn't that unreasonable to require it for C backend.
> Also, I could never get libtool to work correctly, even on Linux,
> despite having alleged cut-and-paste recipes and a man page.

@Whimse claims it works just OK for him. I'll have to adjust it to play
nice with cross-compilation framework I'm working on now.
>
> I was thinking about MRI scripts, but they are also a GNUism not
> supported on BSD.
>
> Why do we need a .a rather than a .o, anyway?
> For the proposed use case, a .o seems more reasonable.

That's what we do - we combine .o files. But Sometimes we want to
combine with already built static libraries. That's when such approach
would be necessary. Mentioned bug affects only such situations. If you
just do monolithic build from lisp lisp sources then there's not a
problem.
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
> Director is a misnomer. You're a hoper. You put all these people together and
> you hope it all works out.  — Frank Oz, director of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"

-- 
Daniel Kochmański | Poznań, Poland
;; aka jackdaniel

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

Re: monolithic-lib-op

[Faré]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Daniel Kochmański  wrote:
>
> Faré writes:
>
>> Difficulties making monolithic-lib-op portable suggest that it (and
>> maybe also lib-op) should output an object file as if by ld -r rather
>> than a static library. Indeed, there is no *portable* way to combine
>> several .a files into a single one on a BSD system (including MacOS
>> X). Or should that be the case only on said systems?
>
> We have currently bug regarding combining static libraries[1], but doesn't
> BSD nor OSX support libtool? If yes, then we can just extract all
> objects from static archive and combine them again.
>
> [1] https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/issues/177
>
> In one of the comments @Whimse provides a working solution using
> libtool.
>
Do you require libtool to be installed on BSD (including OSX)?
It certainly doesn't come standard, not even on Linux.
Also, I could never get libtool to work correctly, even on Linux,
despite having alleged cut-and-paste recipes and a man page.

I was thinking about MRI scripts, but they are also a GNUism not
supported on BSD.

Why do we need a .a rather than a .o, anyway?
For the proposed use case, a .o seems more reasonable.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
Director is a misnomer. You're a hoper. You put all these people together and
you hope it all works out.  — Frank Oz, director of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"