On Apr 22, 11:25 pm, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Tim,
> >..<snip>... > > If the lisp community were alive and well > >their tools would be alive and well. That is clearly not the case of > >gcl and clisp certainly has some serious issues to deal with with > >newer gcc releases as well as compilers not gcc. > > I'm also on the clisp mailing list and I don't recall seeing any > sage-related bug reports there either. Two examples I could find in my local mail archive [I have more, but not all my email that I send is stored locally and searchable]: * "clisp 2.43 Solaris 9 build failure" 11/09/2007 * "clisp.run 2.41 segfaults on Solaris 9 in 32 bit mode" 08/18/2007 I send more emails about two two months ago, but much of that traffic was off-list to Sam directly with William in the CC. Sam has an account on one of William's Solaris boxen, so he can't claim that he doesn't have access. The gcc 4.2 and 4.3 issues are well documented in clisp's sf bugtracker. The report originally was by "cartman", which used to hang around in #sage-devel. I have also commented on various ticket at clisp's sf based bug tracker. So I would say I have met the burden of being involved and attempted to fix things. > >Can gcl be improved? Certainly. But I am not holding my breath. > > >..<snip>... > > I know you don't care about lisp and that's fine. And I know you've > encountered problems with lisp builds. And we both know that when > someone encounters problems with open source tools it is expected > behavior to post bug reports (as I did with Sage this morning). Yes. Your feedback is certainly appreciated and I will fix the bug you reported in 3.0.1. The README.txt says that the minimal supported version of gcc is 3.4 and when building FLINT [later on after eclib] it will error out telling you that you need a C99 compiler. We will move that test to the start of the Sage build process so the error will not happen. > Please post specific bug reports. We all know that's the only real > way anything will get done to solve the problems. The clisp maintainers > are very responsive to mailing list bug reports. Yes, they are, but they haven't solved the problem. Re gcc 4.2+4.3 it boils down to: "We know it miscompiles, it is likely a bug in gcc, so if you figure out what is wrong let us know". Well, after 6+ months I decided that enough is enought [and I looked at their code to get it to compile with Sun Forte's cc or CC] and we are building the code with "-O0" to avoid hitting that bug. But even "-O0" doesn't help on Solaris for example. The last working clisp on Solaris is 2.39 compiled with gcc 3.3 on Solaris 8. I got it to run as a binary by tricking it [it wants readline.so.4, but causes it to segfault, so linking readline.so.5 to readline.so.4 and manipulating LD_LIBRARY_PATH for clisp does the trick]. I feel that I have done more than a reasonable amount of work here. Do you agree or disagree? > Tim Cheers, Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
