I'm not sure how difficult it will be. It's tedious enough that the last time I thought about it, I just left a note next to "no-cgc-needed" in "racket/src/racket/Makefile.in", but maybe it's worth pursuing now.
At Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:39:55 -0700, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > How difficult would it be to allow the bootstrap process to use a > preexisting Racket installation? This would alleviate some of the > performance loss, for example in rebuilds by developers or in continuous > integration. > > Sam > On Aug 11, 2014 11:16 PM, "Matthew Flatt" <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > I've changed the Racket CGC implementation --- which is mostly used > > only to build the normal Racket variant --- to use SGC by default, > > instead of the Boehm GC. The intent of the switch is to make the more > > portable GC the default. > > > > If you have an existing build in a repo checkout, then `make` is likely > > to fail, because the makefile dependencies are not precise enough to > > deal with the switch. You can discard your old build directory, or it > > might work to simply delete > > > > <builddir>/racket/libmzgc.a > > > > If you're using CGC and want to continue using the Boehm GC, then > > provide `--disable-sgc` to `configure`. I've tuned SGC to bring its > > performance closer to the Boehm GC, but it's still slower. > > > > _________________________ > > Racket Developers list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
