[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL
|
From: |
Pierre Neidhardt |
|
Subject: |
Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL |
|
Date: |
Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:43:24 +0200 |
>> I had a look into this, and it seems that CCL cannot currently be built
>> without itself :(
>
> That’s what Mark was hinting at,
Yes, what I meant is that upstream confirmed it.
> and that’s something people here and at
> <https://bootstrappable.org> have been trying hard to fix,
Do you mean that the people at bootstrappable have worked on CCL?
> so let’s not spoil it! ;-)
What do you mean?
From the discussion with SBCL people, it seems that the best course of
action for now is to build against ECL or CLISP.
I'll test both, pick the one that's faster and merge.
What shall we do about CCL? Keep it as "unbootstrappable" package?
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature