From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: rixed@happyleptic.org Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Why 3 different evaluators? Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:17:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20111116101708.GA18426@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> References: <20111116050005.GA19554@happyleptic.org> <8739domn0s.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1321438660 6153 80.91.229.12 (16 Nov 2011 10:17:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:17:40 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 16 11:17:28 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQcYa-0004vn-Da for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:17:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60823 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQcYZ-0004EK-Mb for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:17:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51520) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQcYR-0004CS-IP for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:17:24 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQcYN-0008Bj-GX for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:17:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eneide.happyleptic.org ([213.251.171.101]:43912) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQcYN-0008Bc-CE for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:17:15 -0500 Original-Received: from extranet.securactive.org ([82.234.213.170] helo=ccellier.rd.securactive.lan) by eneide.happyleptic.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RQcef-0005OA-69 for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:23:45 +0100 Original-Received: from rixed by ccellier.rd.securactive.lan with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RQcYG-0004WL-T3 for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:17:08 +0100 Mail-Followup-To: rixed@happyleptic.org, guile-user@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8739domn0s.fsf@pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 213.251.171.101 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:8955 Archived-At: -[ Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:31:31AM +0100, Andy Wingo ]---- > If I bootstrap Guile-X from Guile-Y, I have to make sure that Guile-X's > code can load in Guile-Y -- not trivial -- and I have to trust the > output of Guile-Y. You have to make sure that the evaluator that's written in scheme can be run by Guile-Y. This evaluator migh as well be written to be runnable by many other scheme implementations, if you really do not trust Guile :-) This is how GHC is bootstrapped BTW, any sufficiently standard haskell compiler can do it. > If I bootstrap Guile-X from GCC, I have to trust GCC. And the code for this C evaluator that's almost used nowhere thus probably much less tested than the rest of Guile. > You can use GUILE_FOR_BUILD if you want to speed things up. That's nice, will try it.