mit-scheme-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] [commit 13b5bca] Fix new build to cross from 9.1.


From: Matt Birkholz
Subject: Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] [commit 13b5bca] Fix new build to cross from 9.1.1.
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:42:10 -0700

> From: Taylor R Campbell <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:41:32 +0000
> 
> [...]
> Ugh...  Please don't make more broken make hacks like this.  [...]

It was just an experiment to quickly get me a regular cross-compile.

The bogus linkage-section got out of my way, but it seems now the
little devil just packed up and moved to my Gtk branch.  I'm packing
up my debugging jigs and moving there right now...

> The whole point of the new Makefile.tools is to enable cross-builds
> like compile-svm.sh does [...]

Really?  Then why do I read things like the following?

    ### More stuff we build with tools.  We could build it with the newly
    ### built compiler in the native case, but we want to avoid having to
    ### do that to encourage cross-compilation.

In the LIAR/C and LIAR/svm cross builds, the whole system is native
compiled by a boot-compiler.  Why do we want to encourage
cross-compilation?  Why do you NOT follow the example of LAIR/C's and
LIAR/svm's cross-builds?  Why can't you (and why do you try to)
cross-compile IMAIL?

> What is the substantive difference between what compile-svm.sh does
> and what the parallelized Makefile.tools/Makefile build does?

It only cross-compiles a boot compiler.  On the target, the boot
compiler is fasloaded and used to compile everything natively.  The
installed binaries were written by the boot compiler and the new
machine, not a cross compiler on the old machine "finished" on the new
machine...  If you had a really simple cross fasdumper, perhaps you
could pretend the difference is nothing.

> Is it just about compile-by-procedures and the production of bci
> files?  I don't think setting COMPILER:COMPILE-BY-PROCEDURES is
> necessary for cross-compiling -- IN-CROSS-COMPILER already does
> that.

Good question.  This crazy "we want to avoid having to do that" is
taking you off into the weeds.

But perhaps you are just asking "How can your slightly different
cross-compile have fixed the bogus linkage-section problem?"  My
answer: I'm afraid I only dislodged it!



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]