Thanks for the update and the binaries. FYI - I've
posted about your port on my weblog:
One of the biggest problem areas that I had in testing
your port was actually loading lisp code from a file.
When do you think you'll have the filesystem support
working a bit better?
Overall, I was impressed by what you've done and I
look forward to following your progress. Any roadmap
for when you expect to get more work done on this?
--- nyef@... wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 08:30:39AM -0700, Bill
> Clementson wrote:
> > Hi Alastair,
> > Just came across your #lisp message via KMR's
> logs. As
> > a Win32 user (yes, I can feel the waves of pity
> > across the internet :-)), I don't normally read
> > sbcl-devel. However, I am very interested in the
> > SBCL port that you are working on. I recently
> > about a similar port for CMUCL on my weblog:
> > http://home.comcast.net/~bc19191/blog/040706.html
> Yes, this was brought to my attention. I must say
> I'm impressed.
> > Do you have any additional information that you
> > provide on the port? I would like to mention your
> > port on my weblog (my posting on the cmucl port
> > to get a lot of "hits", so there must be a lot of
> > other win32 developers who would be interested in
> > SBCL port) and it would be useful to have some
> > about how far you've progressed, main areas that
> > need work, whether binaries are available for
> > interested alpha/beta testers, etc. You mentioned
> > you are using a mingw cross-compiler on Linux -
> > you done any native compiles on Win32?
> Well, binaries as of sometime are available
> These are a little out of date WRT the patch I sent,
> not badly so.
> The basic system appears to be working, getting
> warm init. Serve-event isn't working, the filesystem
> stuff has been badly hacked, there's some downright
> weird memory corruption going on (so far only
> noticed in
> the Win32 heap tracking structures and in
> none of the contribs have even been tested, and
> that strangeness with the bad file descriptor for
> on the normal win32 console. You can see some of the
> details in my initial message on this subject.
> I hacked in some primitive compiler stuff for
> but I don't know how good it really is, and I didn't
> any of the wrapper macros for generating ALIEN
> for it yet either. It's possible to use it without
> wrappers, it's just more difficult (and can only
> link to
> functions referenced from the runtime, since I
> fix up GetProcAddress() yet).
> No, I haven't tried doing a native compile.
> Compiling C
> code on a windows box is fundamentally
> and I don't have a host SBCL system for windows
> > Edi brought up a good point - cmucl and sbcl
> > do a lot of sharing of bug fixes and enhancements,
> > you and Carl Shapiro planning to do any
> > on the Win32 support for cmucl/sbcl?
> Not so far as I know. I'm presently unaware of us
> so much as traded emails. We might well be able to
> parts of the system written in Lisp, but the runtime
> probably a lost cause (the runtime is substantially
> different in the base systems, and we're using
> strategies for porting it).
> > Cheers,
> > Bill Clementson
> --Alastair Bridgewater
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!