Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL

[Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>]

[-- 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 --]