8 Apr
2015
8 Apr
'15
10:57 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Raymond Toy toy.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
"Fare" == Far <Far> writes:
Fare> In this case, either dump-image should accept separate :executable and Fare> :standalone arguments, and/or use :executable executable on CMUCL, and Fare> :init-function restore-image Fare> only when standalone. Backward compatibility is a bitch, whereby Fare> :executable should default to T where practical, and :standalone Fare> default to executable where executable-p. Ugh. I hate backward >> >> As it stands now, it seems that with cmucl only executable images can >> be created. That seems not right. >> >> I'm willing to break backward compatibility for asdf and cmucl, >> in this one case. :-) I doubt many people use executable images; I >> rarely do and when I do it's mostly for testing. >> Fare> dump-image was initially stolen from cl-launch, which for Fare> cross-implementation compatibility reasons and simplification in user Fare> experience *really* prefers having to deal with only one file, i.e. an Fare> executable image, than having to deal with many, e.g. an executable Fare> and separate core. Fare> Why can't cmucl use the correct gcc -m32, etc., flags, that will make Fare> it work out of the box on ubuntu, etc.?I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure it uses gcc -m32. Of course, this only works if you have the 32-bit development environment installed. I suspect most people don't, including you. It works for me, but I have the 32-bit dev environment installed so I can build cmucl.
Oh, and indeed, after I apt-get install libc6-dev-i386 it works.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org No one can make you feel inferior without your consent — Eleanor Roosevelt But you're only fooling yourself if you can't recognize your superiors — #f