Re: [Axiom-developer] SBCL and Axiom

[C Y]

Gregory Vanuxem wrote:

> > 1.  You mentioned Juergen Weiss's CMUCL port - did you alter that code 
> > to run on SBCL or use the techniques there as a guide and convert one of 
> > the other trees?
>
> I completely based this work on the version of Juergen Weiss. My work
> was essentially the one of an ant. I grepped the code for "cmu" added
> support of SBCL and Clisp. After that I added some files and modified
> bootsys so that it can be compiled on GCL, SBCL, Clisp and (for the fun)
> Allegro CL. Finally I tried to fix as much as can bugs.

OK

> Juergen Weiss did an amazing work...

No question.  It's a shame that work didn't get more press way back when.

> Of course there are some GLC'ish things in the boot code, as Gaby said
> previously, that needed to be fixed. I must point out that what I have
> done will need to be checked by Lisp specialists. The version that I'll
> share will not be the one I'm working on. I added to this "shareable"
> version a tons of things from the official Axiom such that it'll be easy
> to diff it.

OK, sounds good.  I'm fooling around with asdf at the moment trying to 
figure out how to work with it, which may be a bit premature but will 
hopefully be useful later on.  (Don't know how well GCL/asdf play 
together, I've never successfully run asdf on GCL personally.)

> But I intimately think that we have to reorganise, simplify,
> factorise, develop and document the code when we will merge changes. I
> already began to reorganise the code, this is a pain to work on, say
> stream for example, when the code is disseminated everywhere...
>
> > 2.  Did you change the boot/SPAD compilers to output SBCL compliant lisp 
> > code, or hand tweak the lisp code produced by the "regular" compile?
>
> No the code (from spad, bootsys boot and old boot) produced by the version
> on which I'm working (presumably the same than the official Axiom))
> is compilable and "runnable" by SBCL, CMU [1] and Clisp.

Really??  That's excellent news, but rather surprising.

 > Spad, bootsys boot and old boot can be compiled without problem 
:-). It's really
> simple to add support of SBCL, Clisp, CMU and Allegro (though I'm pretty sure
> some bugs remain) to bootsys. 

Nice!  I have the code in the boot/ directory loading on sbcl as well, 
so it will be interesting to check what the various diffs look like.  I 
have tried running it on interp but I get what are probably the 
collisions between old boot and new boot Gaby mentioned before.

> I forgot to say one thing, I have not "ported" the socket code. I need
> first to better understand some parts of Axiom relative to this.

I'd say usockets and cl-fad might be of interest here (the links I 
provided in another email) but I don't have enough experience with 
either to know for sure.

Cheers,
CY