Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Pierre,

Pierre Neidhardt  writes:

> I've updated SBCL to build against CLISP.
>
> So now Next is back on the bootstrappability road!

Thanks very much for taking care of this!

  Mark

Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL

[Pierre Neidhardt]

I've updated SBCL to build against CLISP.

So now Next is back on the bootstrappability road!

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Pierre Neidhardt  skribis:

> I had a look into this, and it seems that CCL cannot currently be built
> without itself :(

That’s what Mark was hinting at, and that’s something people here and at
 have been trying hard to fix, so let’s not
spoil it!  ;-)

Ludo’.

Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL

[Pierre Neidhardt]

Hmmm, after some reading it seems that CMUCL suffers from the same issue
as CCL:

https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/cmucl/cmucl/wikis/InstallingCmucl

I'd need to test to make sure though.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL

[Pierre Neidhardt]

So CCL might be a lost cause.
I've asked SBCL if it's OK to use CLISP 2.49 or ECL:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/1842319

Note that we could also try with CMUCL, which we need to package.

Cheers!

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL

[Pierre Neidhardt]

I had a look into this, and it seems that CCL cannot currently be built
without itself :(

I've opened an issue on GitHub:
https://github.com/Clozure/ccl/issues/222

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL

[Guillaume Le Vaillant]

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.

Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL

[Pierre Neidhardt]

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/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature