From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2008-04-06 17:40:17
|
"Gabriel Dos Reis" <gd...@in...> writes: > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:25 AM, Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> wrote: >> "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gd...@in...> writes: >> >> > this is not a disagreement; rather a suggestion that the released >> > version for Windows >> > does not print any `extremely cautionary' words. >> >> Until SBCL starts up independently of what other programs are running >> on Windows, > > Would mind an elaboration of this point? Well, I'm no Windows expert, but as I understand it, once a shared library (DLL) is mapped into any process's address space, that shared library will be mapped at the same address for all processes that use that DLL. In particular, this can cause the mapping location for other DLLs to change, depending on what order the programs are started in. Certain programs (XEmacs has historically seemed to be quite a culprit) seem to use DLLs in such a way as to cause some of SBCL's own DLLs to be mapped at addresses in the middle of the address space range used for SBCL's Lisp heap. This causes SBCL to fail to start up. (Could someone who actually knows the details please correct any mistakes here? Also, I understand that one or more of David Lichteblau's git forks may solve this problem; those would be a good starting point.) Best, Christophe |