> Jan is correct that Guile is still heavily tied to its C code. It's true
> that Guile's compiler is written in Scheme and that
> the C evaluator is used only during bootstrapping, but the C bootstrap
> evaluator is only a small piece of libguile.
> The majority of libguile is still needed. N
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
Hey Ricardo,
>> Is there a way to use replace the guile-2.2.2 dependency with the static
>> bootstrap tarball guile-2.0.9? That would already help a lot!
>
> You can override the “guile-for-build” in the GNU build system by
> passing “#:guile ,my-guile” as an argument.
Tha
Hi janneke,
> Is there a way to use replace the guile-2.2.2 dependency with the static
> bootstrap tarball guile-2.0.9? That would already help a lot!
You can override the “guile-for-build” in the GNU build system by
passing “#:guile ,my-guile” as an argument.
> *) should i push this to savann
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> So the next steps in the dependency graph are:
>>
>> mes-boot -> mescc -> tinycc -> gcc@4.7 -> gcc
>>
>> Do I get this right?
Possibly: yes.
I have added tinycc-boot including tests. I mean to refactor the
builders and just for fun add gc
Hi,
"Orians, Jeremiah (DTMB)" writes:
>> Hmm, it's my understanding that Guile is pretty heavily tied to
>> libguile/*.c. What makes you think that it's possible for Guile to
>> run without libguile/*.c?
> https://wingolog.org/archives/2016/01/11/the-half-strap-self-hosting-and-guile
>
> Specif
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> So the next steps in the dependency graph are:
>
> mes-boot -> mescc -> tinycc -> gcc@4.7 -> gcc
>
> Do I get this right?
It’s not clear yet. An alternative approach is to try to build Guile
first by using mes as the bootstrap Scheme interpreter.
Also: I wonder if
> Plus there is another angle on this. MesCC, the bootstrap C compiler in
> Scheme, is not a intended to be used beyond bootstrapping.
And probably will lose features over time not directly related to the act of
bootstrapping itself
> A C compiler on top of Guile however, could be a very inter
Orians, Jeremiah (DTMB) writes:
>> It wouldn’t really help in that mescc+/guilecc is just as capable as the
>> earlier mescc, no?
> There is however a real difference in terms of performance, guile is simply
> faster
Plus there is another angle on this. MesCC, the bootstrap C compiler in
Schem
> It wouldn’t really help in that mescc+/guilecc is just as capable as the
> earlier mescc, no?
There is however a real difference in terms of performance, guile is simply
faster
> Indeed, Guile needs a C compiler.
Technically, it could be built from a lisp compiler
> In general, we need a C co
Jan Nieuwenhuizen skribis:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>>
>>> So the next steps in the dependency graph are:
>>>
>>> mes-boot -> mescc -> tinycc -> gcc@4.7 -> gcc
>>>
>>> Do I get this right?
>
> That has been my idea for a long time, yes...but it may not be feasible,
We had a discussion about that on the irc channel, and it seems, that we
can make a boostrap path to another architecture by using a bootstrapped
toolchain and cross compiling. It is not very confortable, but I think we
can extend the list of bootstrappable software considerably by that.
2017-11-2
> Yeah, the mean reason to do it in Guix packages is that it becomes impossible
> to cheat. However, coding the bootstrap path in Guix
> means that we depend on some form of Guile...hmm.
Easy to break, simply allow each piece to be able to be built using only a
trivial shell script
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Hey Ludo'
> Also, AIUI, stage0 is i386-specific. Thoughts on how we can eventually
> support the other architectures Guix works on?
I goofed ere. Stage0 is mainly using a VM and it has a x86_64
prototype; no x86 yet. Of course, creating the x86 hex0 is almost
trivial g
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> So the next steps in the dependency graph are:
>>
>> mes-boot -> mescc -> tinycc -> gcc@4.7 -> gcc
>>
>> Do I get this right?
That has been my idea for a long time, yes...but it may not be feasible,
wise or most fun. It may not be feasible
14 matches
Mail list logo
