* Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL
@ 2019-08-30 12:33 Guillaume Le Vaillant
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Guillaume Le Vaillant @ 2019-08-30 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pierre Neidhardt; +Cc: guix-devel
Hi,
According to the NEWS file, SBCL 1.5.0 and later can also be
bootstrapped using ECL:
---
changes in sbcl-1.5.0 relative to sbcl-1.4.16:
[...]
* build enhancement: new host quirks mechanism, support for building under
ABCL and ECL (as well as CCL, CMUCL, CLISP and SBCL itself)
[...]
---
Maybe it could be used to have the same bootstrap procedure for all
systems.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL
@ 2019-08-29 22:01 Mark H Weaver
2019-08-30 8:39 ` Pierre Neidhardt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mark H Weaver @ 2019-08-29 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pierre Neidhardt; +Cc: guix-devel
Hi Pierre,
I just noticed that last November, you changed our SBCL package to use
CCL for bootstrapping. Previously, it used CLISP.
commit 4bddcae94bb9d19112354f8f0b93f6e381e67768
Author: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>
Date: Sat Nov 24 18:33:55 2018 +0100
gnu: sbcl: Update to 1.4.13.
* gnu/packages/lisp.scm (sbcl): Update to 1.4.13.
[native-inputs]: Use minimal texlive-union instead of full texlive.
[native-inputs]: Use CCL instead of buggy CLISP.
[arguments]: Replace all (zero? (system* ...)) by invoke.
Since our CCL package only supports i686 and x86_64, a few days later
Efraim changed it back to use CLISP on all non-x86 systems:
commit 76d520facb54f4f86977683fd21bf1d4ac5ba45d
Author: Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>
Date: Thu Nov 29 11:54:30 2018 +0200
gnu: sbcl: bootstrap with clisp on non-Intel machines.
* gnu/packages/lisp.scm (sbcl)[native-inputs]: If the current system is
not x86_64-linux or i686-linux, use clisp in place of ccl.
[arguments]: In the custom build phase, use the correct bootstrap lisp.
The most severe problem with CCL, from my perspective, is that
apparently it cannot be built from source code, or at least our package
in Guix doesn't. As documented in our CCL package definition:
;; CCL consists of a "lisp kernel" and "heap image", both of which are
;; shipped in precompiled form in source tarballs. The former is a C
;; program which we can rebuild from scratch, but the latter cannot be
;; generated without an already working copy of CCL, and is platform
;; dependent, so we need to fetch the correct tarball for the platform.
I consider this issue to be sufficiently serious that I'd like to
propose switching back to CLISP for all systems.
In your commit log, you wrote "Use CCL instead of buggy CLISP". What
bugs are you referring to? Is there a bug in CLISP that prevents it
from successfully bootstrapping current SBCL releases? If so, have the
CLISP developers been informed? Or did you make this change
preemptively, based on lack of confidence in CLISP to do the job?
My immediate interest in this is that I'd like to try "Next" browser,
but I don't want to trust a precompiled CCL heap image. Is there a
reasonable way forward to address this concern?
Thanks,
Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL
2019-08-29 22:01 Mark H Weaver
@ 2019-08-30 8:39 ` Pierre Neidhardt
2019-09-02 10:16 ` Pierre Neidhardt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Neidhardt @ 2019-08-30 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark H Weaver; +Cc: guix-devel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1276 bytes --]
Hi Mark,
First of all, thanks for your interest in Next! :)
If you look at the sbcl package, you'll see this comment which I
copy-pasted from SBCL "INSTALL" file:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
;; From INSTALL:
;; Supported build hosts are:
;; SBCL
;; CMUCL
;; CCL (formerly known as OpenMCL)
;; ABCL (recent versions only)
;; CLISP (only some versions: 2.44.1 is OK, 2.47 is not)
;; XCL
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
The point was 2-fold:
- CLISP seems unreliable.
- SBCL takes ages to compile with it :p (I know, this is mostly practical.)
We can ask the SBCL developers to let us know if they think CLISP can be
re-approved, but as far as I understand, it's mostly untested.
Another solution would be to bootstrap SBCL or CCL
differently. I haven't looked into the details, but there may be some
older version of CCL or SBCL that could be build from C or CLISP
reliably, then use those versions to build the latest CCL and SBCL.
I can look into maybe later next week (no promise, September is going to
be tight for me).
Cheers!
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-09-05 20:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-08-30 12:33 Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL Guillaume Le Vaillant
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-08-29 22:01 Mark H Weaver
2019-08-30 8:39 ` Pierre Neidhardt
2019-09-02 10:16 ` Pierre Neidhardt
2019-09-02 12:44 ` Pierre Neidhardt
2019-09-02 13:01 ` Pierre Neidhardt
2019-09-03 12:39 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-09-03 12:43 ` Pierre Neidhardt
2019-09-05 9:46 ` Pierre Neidhardt
2019-09-05 20:07 ` Mark H Weaver
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).