From: gusti <ggh...@gm...> - 2008-08-16 19:50:15
|
Hello, What is correct way to write the next "sbcl" command in "clisp" ? The main problem is that we have not "save-lisp-and-die" command in clisp. sbcl --eval "(progn (compile-file \"ltk\") (load \"ltk\") (compile-file \"hello-world\") (load \"hello-world\") (save-lisp-and-die \"hello-world.core\"))" thank you in advance, Gustavo |
From: Stephen C. <s1...@me...> - 2008-08-16 23:56:14
|
gusti <ggh...@gm...> writes: > What is correct way to write the next "sbcl" command in "clisp" ? The > main problem is that we have not "save-lisp-and-die" command in clisp. http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes/image.html If you require a memory corruption feature ("and-die"), you will have to implement it yourself as a CLISP extension. -- a Mr. Fleming wishes to study bugs in smelly cheese; a Polish woman wishes to sift through tons of Central African ore to find minute quantities of a substance she says will glow in the dark; a Mr. Kepler wants to hear the songs the planets sing. --Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World" |
From: Raymond T. (RT/EUS) <ray...@er...> - 2008-08-20 13:15:01
|
Stephen Compall wrote: > gusti <ggh...@gm...> writes: >> What is correct way to write the next "sbcl" command in "clisp" ? The >> main problem is that we have not "save-lisp-and-die" command in clisp. > > http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes/image.html > > If you require a memory corruption feature ("and-die"), you will have > to implement it yourself as a CLISP extension. Why is "and-die" a memory corruption feature? Was this a joke? Ray |
From: Christopher B. <cbb...@gm...> - 2008-08-20 14:18:33
|
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Raymond Toy (RT/EUS) <ray...@er...> wrote: > Stephen Compall wrote: >> gusti <ggh...@gm...> writes: >>> What is correct way to write the next "sbcl" command in "clisp" ? The >>> main problem is that we have not "save-lisp-and-die" command in clisp. >> >> http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes/image.html >> >> If you require a memory corruption feature ("and-die"), you will have >> to implement it yourself as a CLISP extension. > > Why is "and-die" a memory corruption feature? > > Was this a joke? No, historically this is how memory dumps have gotten generated for applications that have really complex states where it's nice to pregenerate it. TeX has long been an example of this; search for info on "initex", and generating .fmt files... Emacs historically did the same, I think. -- http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- assortedly attributed to Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling |
From: Raymond T. (RT/EUS) <ray...@er...> - 2008-08-20 23:07:01
|
Christopher Browne wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Raymond Toy (RT/EUS) > <ray...@er...> wrote: >> Stephen Compall wrote: >>> gusti <ggh...@gm...> writes: >>>> What is correct way to write the next "sbcl" command in "clisp" ? The >>>> main problem is that we have not "save-lisp-and-die" command in clisp. >>> http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes/image.html >>> >>> If you require a memory corruption feature ("and-die"), you will have >>> to implement it yourself as a CLISP extension. >> Why is "and-die" a memory corruption feature? >> >> Was this a joke? > > No, historically this is how memory dumps have gotten generated for > applications that have really complex states where it's nice to > pregenerate it. TeX has long been an example of this; search for info > on "initex", and generating .fmt files... > > Emacs historically did the same, I think. Yes, I know about TeX and Emacs, but I didn't know how those dumps were created. But in the context of sbcl, there is no memory corruption, AFAIK. The "and-die" is because you can't continue with the current lisp after you save out core. Ray |
From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2008-08-21 03:30:50
|
> * Raymond Toy (RT/EUS) <enlzbaq.gbl@revpffba.pbz> [2008-08-20 14:28:04 -0400]: > > The "and-die" is because you can't continue with the current lisp > after you save out core. why can't you? -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Fedora release 9 (Sulphur) http://ffii.org http://thereligionofpeace.com http://mideasttruth.com http://palestinefacts.org http://camera.org http://israelunderattack.slide.com Those who can laugh at themselves will never cease to be amused. |
From: gusti <ggh...@gm...> - 2008-08-23 00:21:09
|
Thank you very much for your help. I used 'saveinimem' as you say in almost the same way as 'save-lisp-and-die', see below: clisp -x "(progn (compile-file \"some-file\") (load \"soma-file\") (saveinitmem \"some-file.mem\" ))" I have other question, can I create some executable, maybe using the option ':executable'. I mean an executable that doesn't need to be run using 'clisp' for example for the image above is: clisp -M some-file.mem -x "(progn (some-file:main) (quit))" So I mean running the file 'some-file' without 'clisp'. Thanks in advance, Gustavo || Stephen Compall wrote: > gusti <ggh...@gm...> writes: > >> What is correct way to write the next "sbcl" command in "clisp" ? The >> main problem is that we have not "save-lisp-and-die" command in clisp. >> > > http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes/image.html > > If you require a memory corruption feature ("and-die"), you will have > to implement it yourself as a CLISP extension. > > |
From: Trudgett, D. <D.T...@aa...> - 2008-08-20 23:31:24
|
> >> Why is "and-die" a memory corruption feature? > >> > >> Was this a joke? > > The "and-die" removes lisp from main memory, does it not? This is obviously memory corruption... ;-) David Trudgett Attention Email Disclaimer Notice - This message is the property of AAMHatch. The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error please notify AAMHatch immediately via email to mai...@aa... <mailto:mai...@aa...> This email has been scanned and cleared by NetIQ Mail Marshal, however AAMHatch does not guarantee this message free of viruses, or interference. ________________________________ |
From: Carlos U. <car...@gm...> - 2008-08-21 06:25:55
|
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Raymond Toy (RT/EUS) <ray...@er...> wrote: > But in the context of sbcl, there is no memory corruption, AFAIK. The > "and-die" is because you can't continue with the current lisp after you > save out core. According to the manual (http://www.sbcl.org/manual/Saving-a-Core-Image.html): "It corrupts the current Lisp image enough that the current process needs to be killed afterwards." Carlos |
From: Raymond T. (RT/EUS) <ray...@er...> - 2008-08-22 16:07:14
|
Carlos Ungil wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Raymond Toy (RT/EUS) > <ray...@er...> wrote: >> But in the context of sbcl, there is no memory corruption, AFAIK. The >> "and-die" is because you can't continue with the current lisp after you >> save out core. > > According to the manual > (http://www.sbcl.org/manual/Saving-a-Core-Image.html): "It corrupts > the current Lisp image enough that the current process needs to be > killed afterwards." That's interesting; I didn't know about that. I wonder if it really corrupts memory or just rearranges things so it can't continue. Oh well. Ray |