On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Florian Ebeling
> I knew that sbcl compiles into native code, and that you can
> stare at assembler mnemonics if you call DISASSAMBLE
> on a compiled function. But is it that to actually conclude
> that I invoke a FASL from the shell?!
> I never would have thought that possible without a huge image
> or something to call into and such, but maybe I'm just too
> unimaginative. Yes or no?
Not in the sense you mean: native code doesn't mean the object file
format is understandable to the OS -- or even that "object file" is a
reasonale description of fasls.
That said, you can put a shell trampoline header on top of a fasl, and
do it like that -- but that is equivalent to doing
sbcl --load foo.fasl
(The SB-EXECUTABLE contrib can write the trampoline for you, by the way.)