Re: [Sbcl-devel] Compile on Linux (Ubuntu Gutsy)

[Christophe R. <cs...@ca...>]

Claudius Hamlet <ham...@ya...> writes:

>>>> My hope was that a  self-compiled version might do better.
>>>> Unfortunately, the build fails with the following stack trace: 
>>
>>> I second your wish to have working bootstrap path with at least CLISP.
>
>>What is the actual aim (because "build from CLISP" is a little bit
>>esoteric)?  To bootstrap all the way from gcc?  If so, I'd try Peter
>>Graves' XCL instead, because it is (or was) at least tested
>>occasionally by Peter himself.
>
> Is XCL (with which I have no previous experience) supported and
> straightforward to deploy? Version 0.0.0.0 doesn't inspire a lot of
> confidence...

I don't think anyone would use it for Real Work, other than perhaps
Peter himself, but since I believe one of his regression tests is
whether or not it can compile sbcl successfully, it would seem to be a
reasonable thing to use to compile sbcl.

> well, the http://www.sbcl.info/getting.html is quite specific:
>
> "SBCL can be compiled from source code using another
> ANSI-compliant Common Lisp implementation. As of SBCL 0.8.13, the
> following compilers are known to work:
> 	* SBCL itself
> 	* CMU Common Lisp, tested with 18e and 19a
> 	* OpenMCL 0.14.1
> 	* CLISP 2.33.2"

> "are known to work" really means to me "you're on the safe side if
> you go for one of these" – especially since the version given is so
> very specific.

Yeah, and you can probably successfully use clisp 2.33.2 to compile
sbcl 0.8.13... 1.0.xx might be a different matter.  (In that sense,
the information on the website is indeed very outdated :-)

Cheers,

Christophe