Thread: Re: [open-axiom-devel] [open-axiom-commit] SF.net SVN: open-axiom: [252] trunk/src/interp
A system for computer algebra and symbolic mathematics
Brought to you by:
dos-reis
From: Gregory V. <g.v...@or...> - 2007-11-27 18:37:23
|
Le dimanche 25 novembre 2007 à 17:32 -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit : > Gregory Vanuxem <g.v...@or...> writes: > > | hello, > | > | Le dimanche 25 novembre 2007 à 13:18 -0800, > | dos...@us... a écrit : > | > Revision: 252 > | > http://open-axiom.svn.sourceforge.net/open-axiom/?rev=252&view=rev > | > Author: dos-reis > | > Date: 2007-11-25 13:18:38 -0800 (Sun, 25 Nov 2007) > | > | [...] > | > | > > | > Modified: trunk/src/interp/foam_l.lisp > | > =================================================================== > | > --- trunk/src/interp/foam_l.lisp 2007-11-25 03:59:54 UTC (rev 251) > | > +++ trunk/src/interp/foam_l.lisp 2007-11-25 21:18:38 UTC (rev 252) > | > @@ -72,6 +72,10 @@ > | > #-:common-lisp (:use "LISP") > | > (:use "FOAM")) > | > > | > +#+:gcl (in-package "BOOT") > | > +#+:gcl (in-package "AxiomCore") > | > | This is not intentional, isn't it ? > > It is a workaround a mysterious bug in GCL. > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gcl-devel/2007-08/msg00004.html Thanks for this response and for understanding my beautiful english :) Just out of curiosity, do you plan to support other LISP implementations than GCL in the near future ? Greg |
From: Gabriel D. R. <gd...@cs...> - 2007-11-27 18:40:11
|
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Gregory Vanuxem wrote: | Just out of curiosity, do you plan to support other LISP implementations | than GCL in the near future ? Yes, as a matter of fact, that was part of the build-improvements aims and the infrastructure is already there -- I `just' need more work. The `everything' compiled was partly motivated by the desire to use ECL. -- Gaby |
From: Martin R. <mar...@un...> - 2007-11-27 19:23:19
|
Gabriel Dos Reis <gd...@cs...> writes: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Gregory Vanuxem wrote: > > | Just out of curiosity, do you plan to support other LISP implementations > | than GCL in the near future ? > > Yes, as a matter of fact, that was part of the build-improvements > aims and the infrastructure is already there -- I `just' need more work. > The `everything' compiled was partly motivated by the desire to use ECL. Since friCAS already supports SBCL, CLISP, GCL and Openmcl, wouldn't it make sense to synchronise the relevant parts? Or are open-axiom and fricas already too far apart to profit from one another? Martin |
From: Waldek H. <he...@ma...> - 2007-11-28 00:13:22
|
Martin Rubey wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis <gd...@cs...> writes: > > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Gregory Vanuxem wrote: > > > > | Just out of curiosity, do you plan to support other LISP implementations > > | than GCL in the near future ? > > > > Yes, as a matter of fact, that was part of the build-improvements > > aims and the infrastructure is already there -- I `just' need more work. > > The `everything' compiled was partly motivated by the desire to use ECL. > > Since friCAS already supports SBCL, CLISP, GCL and Openmcl, wouldn't it make > sense to synchronise the relevant parts? > > Or are open-axiom and fricas already too far apart to profit from one another? "synchronise" is a bit tricky because support for SBCL, in particluar content of the src/lisp subdirectory was one of first places where build-improvements and wh-sandbox diverged in a non-trival way (non-trival meaning that the same code was changed in two different ways). OTOH OpenAxiom can easily benefit from work done in wh-sandbox and FriCAS. One easy piece is FFI support -- FriCAS FFI support is not nice (I plan to re-stucture it) but it works and can be easily re-used. Similarly platform-specific routines are easy to re-use. More generally I would say that differences outside src/interp are easily managable. In src/interp things get more tricky: OpenAxiom has 131367 lines there, FriCAs 93913. The unified diff of common files has 35272 lines. Most of differences is trivial, but bulk of the diff makes hard to spot the essential ones. I belive that FriCAS and OpenAxiom will be able for long time to "port" improvements from one to another, but "synchronizing" both codebases is more difficult. -- Waldek Hebisch he...@ma... |
From: Gabriel D. R. <gd...@cs...> - 2007-11-27 19:30:06
|
Martin Rubey <mar...@un...> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis <gd...@cs...> writes: | | > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Gregory Vanuxem wrote: | > | > | Just out of curiosity, do you plan to support other LISP implementations | > | than GCL in the near future ? | > | > Yes, as a matter of fact, that was part of the build-improvements | > aims and the infrastructure is already there -- I `just' need more work. | > The `everything' compiled was partly motivated by the desire to use ECL. | | Since friCAS already supports SBCL, CLISP, GCL and Openmcl, wouldn't it make | sense to synchronise the relevant parts? | | Or are open-axiom and fricas already too far apart to profit from one another? I really don't know. You know about that than I do. -- Gaby |
From: Martin R. <mar...@un...> - 2007-11-27 19:41:33
|
Gabriel Dos Reis <gd...@cs...> writes: > | Since friCAS already supports SBCL, CLISP, GCL and Openmcl, wouldn't it make > | sense to synchronise the relevant parts? > | > | Or are open-axiom and fricas already too far apart to profit from one another? > > I really don't know. You know about that than I do. I guess you meant to put "as much as" or "more than" instead of "than". If so, than that's very sad, since I don't know anything about these internals. Well, never mind. Martin |
From: Gabriel D. R. <gd...@cs...> - 2007-11-27 19:43:26
|
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Martin Rubey wrote: | Gabriel Dos Reis <gd...@cs...> writes: | | > | Since friCAS already supports SBCL, CLISP, GCL and Openmcl, wouldn't it make | > | sense to synchronise the relevant parts? | > | | > | Or are open-axiom and fricas already too far apart to profit from one another? | > | > I really don't know. You know about that than I do. | | I guess you meant to put "as much as" or "more than" instead of "than". you're right: I meant "more than". | If so, | than that's very sad, since I don't know anything about these internals. :-( -- Gaby |
From: Martin R. <mar...@un...> - 2007-11-27 19:47:19
|
Gabriel Dos Reis <gd...@cs...> writes: > | If so, > | than that's very sad, since I don't know anything about these internals. > > :-( :-( By the way, here is part of the next-to last Changelog entry of FriCAS: * src/interp/nlib.lisp: Add ECL variants of some functions. * file src/interp/util.lisp: Likewise. * src/interp/vmlisp.lisp: Likewise. * src/lisp/axiom-lisp.lisp: Likewise. I can only suspect that ECL is the lisp implementation. But no matter whether it is or not, I think you guys really should try to cooperate. It looks like a lot of wasted time. Martin |
From: Waldek H. <he...@ma...> - 2007-11-28 02:41:08
|
Martin Rubey wrote: > By the way, here is part of the next-to last Changelog entry of FriCAS: > > * src/interp/nlib.lisp: Add ECL variants of some functions. > * file src/interp/util.lisp: Likewise. > * src/interp/vmlisp.lisp: Likewise. > * src/lisp/axiom-lisp.lisp: Likewise. > > I can only suspect that ECL is the lisp implementation. But no matter whether > it is or not, I think you guys really should try to cooperate. It looks like a > lot of wasted time. > Yes, ECL is Embeddable Common-Lisp. FYI I have recently succesfully bootstrapped ECL based FriCAS. There are some problems with the port: - ECL changes break GCL based build - build works at safety 2 (default in ECL) but fails if safety is 1 or 0 - there is a bunch of failing tests - bootstrap takes more than 16 hours (on Core Duo machine). For comparison on the same machine clisp needs slightly more than 3 hours for bootstrap. - resulting AXIOMsys is quite slow (slower than clisp based one) - no graphic/HyperDoc support I hope that build at safety 0 will work faster (and that the resulting AXIOMsys will be faster). Concerning wasted work, I do not think it so bad: first step in supporting ECL was to fix various bugs - some fixes I picked from OpenAxiom. Another step was to identify ECL bug which prevented creating correct interpsys. This bug was fixed by main ECL developer (Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll) -- I belive that the fix is also important for OpenAxiom. The commit in question implements various support routines needed in interpsys and AXIOMsys. I am not sure if Gaby has similar routines but if not, then OpenAxiom can easily benefit from them. The remaining (uncommited -- I can provide a patch if anybody wants to see it) part of ECL support deals mostly with build machinery. Here it seems that I and Gaby have somewhat different opinions. I use what I consider rather small change to machinery introduced by Gaby in build-improvements. I feel that having working build process supporting various Lisp system reasonably justifies my choice. AFAICS Gaby wanted deeper changes -- I think he can better explain what technique he uses and give good reason why. BTW: Gaby, can you build bootsys using ECL at safety 0? I am getting errors already in bootsys build. -- Waldek Hebisch he...@ma... |
From: Alfredo P. <doy...@gm...> - 2007-11-27 23:56:47
|
On 27 Nov 2007 20:47:21 +0100, Martin Rubey <mar...@un...> wrote: > I can only suspect that ECL is the lisp implementation. But no matter > whether > it is or not, I think you guys really should try to cooperate. It looks > like a > lot of wasted time. or merge :-) Regards, Alfredo |
From: Bill P. <bil...@ne...> - 2007-11-28 00:16:10
|
On 11/27/07, Alfredo Portes wrote: > > On 27 Nov 2007 20:47:21 +0100, Martin Rubey wrote: > > > I can only suspect that ECL is the lisp implementation. But no > > matter whether it is or not, I think you guys really should try to > > cooperate. It looks like a lot of wasted time. > > or merge :-) > I think this is good advice, but advice about the obvious is not particularly useful. :-( If we really think that FriCAS and OpenAxiom should co-operator more or even merge I think it is up to us to make this happen. So far both Gaby and Waldek are working (more or less) on their own. No one else has stepped forward to contribute substantial new code to either Axiom fork. But in spite of this both forks are making considerable progress in their respective areas of concentration. Most of the changes in each branch are still largely orthogonal. For example it should be possible (in principle) to easily add the new algebra bootstrap procedure in FriCAS to OpenOffice. This would provide a major benefit for algebra development in OpenAxiom and help to ensure compatibility between these fork in future changes in the algebra code. Similarly, it should be possible to move the changes in OpenAxiom that affect how Boot code is compiled (new versus old boot, depsys etc.) in FriCAS. Neither of these tasks (in principle) require a particularly deep knowlege of the internals - at least not so long as the authors remain accessible for questions. And questions lead to more documentation, right? So if we (the users of either or both forks) really want a merge and greater co-operation I think it is time that we actual contribute to the effort rather than giving only "free" advice. :-) Regards, Bill Page. |
From: Alfredo P. <doy...@gm...> - 2007-11-28 00:28:35
|
On Nov 27, 2007 7:16 PM, Bill Page <bil...@ne...> wrote: > > So if we (the users of either or both forks) really want a merge and > greater co-operation I think it is time that we actual contribute to > the effort rather than giving only "free" advice. :-) > > Sorry it was not my intention to give any kind of empty statement. I was just trying to say that maybe Waldek and Gaby at some point in the future can talk about it, to put together their great talents in one "super Axiom" project :-). But like you said both projects are making great progress on different areas. I apologize for my comment, Alfredo |
From: Bill P. <bil...@ne...> - 2007-11-28 00:35:07
|
On 11/27/07, Alfredo Portes wrote: > ... > But like you said both projects are making great progress on different > areas. > > I apologize for my comment, > Gee, I didn't think an apology was called for. ;-) Rather, my comments should be interpreted as a "call to action". Regards, Bill Page. |
From: Alfredo P. <doy...@gm...> - 2007-11-28 00:37:35
|
On Nov 27, 2007 7:35 PM, Bill Page <bil...@ne...> wrote: > > Gee, I didn't think an apology was called for. ;-) Rather, my comments > should be interpreted as a "call to action". > :-) On another note, I think you can remove the link in the frontpage to the old wiki given that it redirects to itself. Alfredo |
From: Bill P. <bil...@ne...> - 2007-11-28 00:50:53
|
On 11/27/07, Alfredo Portes wrote: > > On another note, I think you can remove the link in the frontpage to > the old wiki given that it redirects to itself. > Right. Done. Thanks. It would be great if you could review and/or edit more pages on the new site. Regards, Bill Page. |
From: Alfredo P. <doy...@gm...> - 2007-11-28 02:29:13
|
The link from Try Online / Axiom in the frontpage points to a none related page, however I do not know what the correct page should be (maybe SandBox). On Nov 27, 2007 7:50 PM, Bill Page <bil...@ne...> wrote: > On 11/27/07, Alfredo Portes wrote: > > > > On another note, I think you can remove the link in the frontpage to > > the old wiki given that it redirects to itself. > > > > Right. Done. Thanks. It would be great if you could review and/or edit > more pages on the new site. > > Regards, > Bill Page. > |