From: Juho S. <js...@ik...> - 2007-09-15 16:55:43
|
Aleksej Saushev <as...@ho...> writes: > Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes: > > The alternative to building with a lisp that is not CLISP is to do > > some work to debug the CLISP build failures; a first step would be to > > eliminate all things that can vary between builds: records of > > pathnames, timestamps and the like, and then do a byte-for-byte > > comparison of cross-compiler fasl files between say CLISP and SBCL. > > That would be worthy work, but is clearly some effort -- but maybe > > less effort for you than to use something other than CLISP, I don't > > know. If you're interested in doing some of this work, I can provide > > a starting point. > > Alright. I see no other way currently. > Should I contact CLISP developers? Probably not, unless you can give them a significantly smaller test case exhibiting the bug than all >200kloc of sbcl, with an error occuring at some unknown point during a 10 minute build process. (Note that it's not certain that the problem is in CLisp; it's also possible that there's some bug in the sbcl, which isn't triggered the other implementations that are able to build sbcl). The suggestions Christophe made involve changing the sbcl cross-compiler, not CLisp. It's unfortunately not just a matter of getting rid of timestamps etc. I think stuff like pretty-printed sexps can also end up in fasls. -- Juho Snellman |