From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: on native compilation Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:07:41 +0200 Message-ID: <87hadjv0ki.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87ppssztgh.fsf@pobox.com> <1378098441.18368.21.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1379437684 1798 80.91.229.3 (17 Sep 2013 17:08:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:08:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Sjoerd van Leent Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 17 19:08:08 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VLykx-0004wk-P0 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:08:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42624 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLykx-0000Yx-54 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:08:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48819) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLykp-0000Yc-Vs for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:08:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLykg-0008U1-CB for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:07:59 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:64061 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLykg-0008Tl-7E for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:07:50 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8D8E711; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:07:49 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BejcjAgCwjbuRtptLrfHvrdW0Dg=; b=akXJ0n Y/QblMkVfeRwk1uWAhneWwwa0fH5fC7iGS95avvZMVVDpHgsb8O6y8MppEpw0nTb uEPN4oI/aHVaS5zvZfyBy9ItO/11YfzirOJTl30n5Li66VRZXYJqYTxcT1j7UF1F p61rYY+QaI2QY9iOlmOes8OWPqNj93HfkwAtY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=s2XeYPz/VZfcIicyr8rax2adNgMJjoFm ++2DPUjd/Bkka+8YRHG7KfHHdtwzch51Xhqblk33cOij6b/8mlBeaXwc1waTK+ZQ iDMe8ZlT02WZoBtV3bT59kMEAADMxDN5QgQE4LMVr870X78VeT+NuHe5nrSFI5/q u9IPDSP/Fdc= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90DCFE710; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:07:49 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D79B0E70F; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:07:48 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Sjoerd van Leent's message of "Sun, 8 Sep 2013 20:19:22 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: AE07BA70-1FBB-11E3-BF19-CE710E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 208.72.237.25 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:16636 Archived-At: Hi, On Sun 08 Sep 2013 20:19, Sjoerd van Leent writes: > Reading the written thoughts below, what was the actual reason no to use > GNU Lightning? Has that too many complexities or incompatibilities to be > used for Scheme and other functional languages opposed to it's native > GNU Smalltalk? > > I ask this since recently GNU Lightning 2.0 has seen the light, and I > just wonder if it would be wise to reinvestigate. It makes sense to investigate, yes. However the issue is more one of getting getting the right abstractions in Guile, and it's not clear that Lightning provides them. Lightning is for JIT compilation, and we want to do AOT first. I think it makes sense to get native code for one architecture, see how that interacts with our needs for debugging, then start to think if an existing project's code generation abstractions suit our needs. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/