From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2009-04-19 20:39:22
|
Hi, As some people know, I've been working recently on making SBCL compilation even more deterministic, to the point that compiling the same sources under whichever host compiler should produce the same cross-compiled fasls, and the same cold-sbcl.core. The good news is that that work is now basically done; on my x86/linux system clisp and sbcl hosts produce bitwise identical fasls and core. I've put up a candidate set of patches at <http://rvw.doc.gold.ac.uk/sullivan/git/sbcl.git> (viewable through gitweb at <http://rvw.doc.gold.ac.uk/sullivan/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=sbcl.git;a=summary>). The repeatable-build-merge branch at that repository contains a set of patches all of which bar the first ("infrastructure") I would like to merge; the repeatable-build branch itself shows how I got there. I'd appreciate review from anyone, or a go-ahead from whoever it is who's wearing the Release Manager hat this month... Thanks, Christophe |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2009-04-24 16:06:07
|
Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes: > The repeatable-build-merge branch at that repository contains a set of > patches all of which bar the first ("infrastructure") I would like to > merge; the repeatable-build branch itself shows how I got there. I'd > appreciate review from anyone, or a go-ahead from whoever it is who's > wearing the Release Manager hat this month... Ah, I think I might be wearing the Release Manager hat this month. In any case, I have merged this branch into CVS. The upshot is that it should be a lot more possible to build SBCL from CLISP on all architectures, and that on x86 specifically the cross-compiler fasls should be bitwise identical between (at least) SBCL and CLISP hosts. I'd be interested in reports on other platforms (and of course failure reports of any kind). Cheers, Christophe |
From: Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...> - 2009-04-29 16:03:57
Attachments:
no-ignorable-functions-on-xc-host.patch
|
2009/4/24 Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...>: > I'd be interested in reports on other platforms (and of course > failure reports of any kind). I think you already know of this, but Clisp 2.47 does not work as a host out of the box, due to it not accepting IGNORABLE declarations for local function names. Good news is that the attached bit of ugliness makes it happy. (Just built HEAD+patch with it on OS X / x86.) Cheers, -- Nikodemus |
From: Josh E. <jo...@el...> - 2009-04-29 16:20:26
|
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 07:03:49PM +0300, Nikodemus Siivola wrote: > 2009/4/24 Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...>: > > > I'd be interested in reports on other platforms (and of course > > failure reports of any kind). > > I think you already know of this, but Clisp 2.47 does not work as a > host out of the box, due to it not accepting IGNORABLE declarations > for local function names. > > Good news is that the attached bit of ugliness makes it happy. (Just > built HEAD+patch with it on OS X / x86.) They're implemented in Clisp CVS: http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/src/compiler.lisp?r1=1.339&r2=1.340&view=patch Using Clisp 2.47 built with that patch, I can build SBCL just fine on OpenBSD/amd64. |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2009-04-29 17:40:00
|
Nikodemus Siivola <nik...@ra...> writes: > 2009/4/24 Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...>: > >> I'd be interested in reports on other platforms (and of course >> failure reports of any kind). > > I think you already know of this, but Clisp 2.47 does not work as a > host out of the box, due to it not accepting IGNORABLE declarations > for local function names. I did know this, yes; Stas Boukarev reported it to me in private e-mail. > Good news is that the attached bit of ugliness makes it happy. (Just > built HEAD+patch with it on OS X / x86.) Too horrible to contemplate. I'd rather document that clisp 2.47 is broken. But thanks! Best, Christophe |