From: Miles E. <mi...@ca...> - 2003-10-27 16:08:06
|
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 22:03, Daniel Barlow wrote: > Is it worth my mentioning that O'Caml (last time I looked, at least, > which was admittedly a few years ago) does something very similar to > the sb-executable kludge? OCaml does this for bytecode executables. OCaml native-code executables are real honest-to-goodness standalone ELF binaries. That's one of the things OCaml really does well, IMHO. It would be very cool if it were possible to use SBCL to build real ELF binaries too. I poked around with a few approaches to this over the weekend. It doesn't seem like it would be too hard to tack an core file onto the end of a little c-kernel bootstrapper and just load the core from the end of that kernel. Good elf docs seem to be a little hard to find though. > As others have remarked, i think the real improvement that would > enable SBCL shell scripting to become reasonable would be an > improvement in fasl loading speed. My suspicion is that this probably > involves a new fasl format that looks more like an object file and > less like a bytecoded forth machine, but I'd be happy to be proved > wrong on that one ;-) Is this assuming that most scripts are going to want to load big libraries like cl-ppcre or the like? Otherwise it doesn't seem like fasl performance would make much difference because, presumably, lisp scripts will always be loaded as sounce. --=20 Miles Egan <mi...@ca...> |