Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> It appears to me (anecdotally) that most of the build time is spent >>>> compiling Scheme code, rather than C code. >>>> >>>> One idea I had been toying with is whether Guile could compile faster >>>> if it had another copy of Guile already around, so it could skip the >>>> portion of compile-time where the interpreter is running the compiler. >>> >>> Bootstrap hell. If the "copy of Guile already around" happens to >>> produce different code, you have lots of fun ahead. > > > Oh, I was unclear. I meant that the existing copy of Guile would run > the compiler from the new copy of Guile.
That assumes that it runs it producing a correct result. > In the worst case you'd have to bootstrap, but that's what we do now, > every time. If the "copy of Guile already around" is malicious, bootstrapping from the produced compilation can't get rid of the malice. See Ken Thompson's malicious compiler experiment. -- David Kastrup
