From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Why 3 different evaluators? Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:31:31 +0100 Message-ID: <8739domn0s.fsf@pobox.com> References: <20111116050005.GA19554@happyleptic.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1321435911 18747 80.91.229.12 (16 Nov 2011 09:31:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: rixed@happyleptic.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 16 10:31:47 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 1RQbqN-0000i8-1M for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:31:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43008 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQbqM-0005xj-I1 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:31:46 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56288) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQbqI-0005xe-Ri for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:31:44 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQbqC-00005L-Kn for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:31:42 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:54045 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQbqC-00005B-IM for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:31:36 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93516E8E; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:31:35 -0500 (EST) 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=VASHyNi2w1312pVVEoiiO+kmdf4=; b=P1i0Ry pHQ+HZ7jqntwEA7qS0xLB/fGCXqsZQCE5xKFNIn+zQg126QPMVwj+yS7yx/QNapK mcZWO7HffhMaZ2htCgXDa+nt/XXMdgbKp++wjQzOlRHZbdAHJSsLae2bD6GBV+EZ gH4jj7frI/cvLEuYPY/rlVJFcvnTBQT90OUk8= 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=k4X90bgohQ631XLNwlwWIGwTF3DF3Sv5 loPTAQhCN3gpqWOU7Kn4/mUWMuZ5JimrEtybrfWmarQTvG9pgCJnPiIqks1UpmBZ cgWbABs3giFLI4E2ZulIbEbvmq9w506Aur2D7gTzNY1GaAjhkzN+4BYCYYuSu4LK z0/u6rxjW3I= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A260A6E8D; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:31:35 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C2186E8C; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:31:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20111116050005.GA19554@happyleptic.org> (rixed@happyleptic.org's message of "Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:00:05 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C6CF550A-1035-11E1-A8A0-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 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:8954 Archived-At: On Wed 16 Nov 2011 06:00, rixed@happyleptic.org writes: > According to the doc, guile currently maintain 3 evaluators: > > - the new VM > - an evaluator written in scheme > - the old C evaluator, used for bootstrapping the compiler. > > That's a lot of code just to bootstrap the compiler. Why not bootstrapping the > compiler from either previous installed guile or (as fall-back) some provided > .go bytecode instead? Wouldn't that make guile code significantly simpler to > maintain and faster to compile? No :) 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. If I bootstrap Guile-X from GCC, I have to trust GCC. I trust GCC more than Guile-Y. You can use GUILE_FOR_BUILD if you want to speed things up. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/