From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:07:59 PDT." <3e1162e60807080807n72028e01vbe117c358fecd65@mail.gmail.com> From: Bakul Shah Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:05:28 -0700 Message-Id: <20080708190528.919FA5B46@mail.bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] lisp Topicbox-Message-UUID: df09da7e-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:07:59 PDT "David Leimbach" wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Dave Eckhardt > > > wrote: > > > > cmucl is directly executable but it has only enough > > > intelligence to load a big lisp.core, which contains > > > all the smarts. > > > > If these core files aren't generated all *that* often, > > one could write a tool which would turn a core file > > into a byte array, link a new lisp executable, and > > exec() that. I realize that's not an answer to the > > question as posed, but... > > > > Dave Eckhardt > > > > I'm not sure if any action is being taken just yet on which Lisp to "go > for" but, if I were porting a lisp I'd be looking at either CMUCL or SBCL, > and probably lean more towards SBCL, as they've done a bit of work to make > bootstrapping a little nicer. I had asked my friend who ported CMUCL to Windows about this. He too first looked at SBCL but found it hard to port and the bootstrapping process was a lot longer. He was then able to create the initial CMUCL port by porting just the runtime -- he added just enough of a compatibility layer to allow use of a FreeBSD core image. Compiled Lisp object would think it is running on FreeBSD. > I like Dave Eckhardt's idea. I don't think core files get changed that > often, In the olden days Lisps used to create a custom executable by storing the heap in a data segment. Something to look into.