FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math » Symbolic
Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [22 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2 Next
Author Message
Martin Rubey
science forum beginner


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:25 am    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Dear Dave,

as far as I know, maxima also builds with CLISP and CMUCL. In any case, I
believe you should ask this sort of questions on maxima@math.utexas.edu.

Martin
Back to top
jacob navia
science forum beginner


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:03 am    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

You get what you pay for...


NO WARRANTY

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
Back to top
Martin Rubey
science forum beginner


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:08 am    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:

Quote:
You get what you pay for...

Did you ever read the warranties given by Mathematica/Maple/MuPAD/... ?

Martin

L I M I T E D WARRANTY

WRI warrants that the Product shall be free from defects in the physical media
for a period of ninety days following date of purchase when used under normal
conditions. THE FOREGOING WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED. WRI DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SOFTWARE IS FREE FROM ALL BUGS AND
OMISSIONS; THE PRODUCT IS SOLD AS IS. WRI MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCT OR THE SOFTWARE CONTAINED IN THE PRODUCT,
INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATIONS, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
INTEROPERABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ALL OF WHICH IS
EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED. WRI DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE
PROGRAM WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM WILL
BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING, YOU SHOULD
RECOGNIZE THAT ALL COMPLEX SOFTWARE SYSTEMS AND THEIR DOCUMENTATION CONTAIN
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS. WRI, ITS DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS SHALL NOT BE
RESPONSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION ON OR CORRECTIONS
TO ERRORS AND OMISSIONS DISCOVERED AT ANY TIME IN THE PRODUCT, WHETHER OR NOT
THEY ARE AWARE OF THE ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. WRI DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE USE OF
THE SOFTWARE FOR APPLICATIONS IN WHICH ERRORS OR OMISSIONS COULD THREATEN LIFE,
INJURY OR SIGNIFICANT LOSS. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, SO THIS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC
LEGAL RIGHTS, AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO
STATE. This License Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of
Illinois.

Quote:


NO WARRANTY

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
Back to top
Rob Thorpe
science forum beginner


Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:07 am    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Dave (from the UK) wrote:
Quote:
I tried to build GNU Common Lisp 2.6.7 (I've call it GCL from now on),
using a Sun Ultra 80 workstation which runs Solaris 10. The aim was to
run Maxima

http://maxima.sourceforge.net/

which is a computer algebra system.

But GCL seems to have a really buggy configure/make system, which is one
of the worst I have ever come across.

1) I tried to build with Sun's C compiler cc(1) and set both CC and
CFLAGS to suitable values.

sparrow /tmp/gcl-2.6.7 % printenv CC
/opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc
sparrow /tmp/gcl-2.6.7 % printenv CFLAGS
-fast -fsimple=1

But whilst it takes note of my CC, the configure script decides to add
loads of its own gcc specific compiler flags, totally ignoring my CFLAGS.

So

-fast -fsimple=1 get converted to:

-fast -fsimple=1 -Wall -DVOL=volatile -fsigned-char -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer

which was not what I asked for. The Sun compiler will not accept -Wall
so aborts. I doubt it will accept most of the others too.

After giving up with cc(1) and using gcc(1), renaming my awk, getting
around various other bugs (not so damm stupid as the compiler flags
one), but many seem very basic, I got as far as trying to link GCL.

But then the compiler finds I don't have the BFD library. Correct me if
I am wrong, but that sort of thing should be picked up in the configure
script - it should attempt to link a program with that library and check
it links and gives sensible output.

If a library can't be found, the configure script should abort, perhaps
print a URL where it can be downloaded from - not create makefiles.

Within half an hour of trying to build GCL, I have uncovered at least 4
bugs. At that point I decided I'd not bother any more. I have reported
the bugs.

http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=16700
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=16699
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=16697
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=16696

All are still open, with nobody assigned to them.

Any suggestions of a better alternative, that will build Maxima?

I have also had problems building GCL. Though I have managed to build
it on Linux from sources by adjustment of makefiles etc.

Although GCL was orignally made for any *nix system it doesn't appear
intended to work on any *nix anymore. The README and install
information is now very old. I think the author intends GCL to really
be for Debian. On Debian GCL is capable of supporting close to ANSI
Common Lisp.

You should not have a problem with BFD though, since this is included
in the GCL distribution and should be built at GCL build time.

And BTW, generally you don't want to use Solaris awk, AFAICR it's
ancient from the 80s.

Also specifying very high optimization flags for GCC when compiling
Lisp code automatically generated into C code will often reveal GCC
bugs.
Back to top
Dave (from the UK)
science forum addict


Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:44 am    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Martin Rubey wrote:
Quote:
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:


You get what you pay for...

Did you ever read the warranties given by Mathematica/Maple/MuPAD/... ?

Martin

L I M I T E D WARRANTY

WRI warrants that the Product shall be free from defects in the physical media
for a period of ninety days following date of purchase when used under normal

EXACTLY - very little warranty at all.

As a matter of interest, have you recently (or ever?) tried looking
online for a Mathematica License Agreement? The only copies I can find
are at Universities. I can't seem to find one at www.wolfram.com.

#1 on Google if you search for mathematica license agreement is

http://www1.cuny.edu/resources/site_licenses/Exhibit_B.pdf

#3 in the list is a Staff Home-Use request page for universities, which
is at the Wolfram site:

http://www.wolfram.com/siteinfo/academic/homeuse.cgi

but as for a license agreement, it seems hard to find.

Do a Google on a line from what you posted and there are 753 hits.
Change it to only visit wolfram.com, by adding the site directive:

site:www.wolfram.com WRI warrants that the Product shall be free from
defects in the

and the hits drops quite dramatically to 0.

--
Dave K MCSE.

MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica frontend)
Back to top
daly@axiom-developer.org1
science forum beginner


Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Dave (from the UK) wrote:
Quote:
I tried to build GNU Common Lisp 2.6.7 (I've call it GCL from now on),
using a Sun Ultra 80 workstation which runs Solaris 10. The aim was to
run Maxima

http://maxima.sourceforge.net/

which is a computer algebra system.

But GCL seems to have a really buggy configure/make system, which is one
of the worst I have ever come across.

1) I tried to build with Sun's C compiler cc(1) and set both CC and
CFLAGS to suitable values.

sparrow /tmp/gcl-2.6.7 % printenv CC
/opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc
sparrow /tmp/gcl-2.6.7 % printenv CFLAGS
-fast -fsimple=1

But whilst it takes note of my CC, the configure script decides to add
loads of its own gcc specific compiler flags, totally ignoring my CFLAGS.

So

-fast -fsimple=1 get converted to:

-fast -fsimple=1 -Wall -DVOL=volatile -fsigned-char -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer

which was not what I asked for. The Sun compiler will not accept -Wall
so aborts. I doubt it will accept most of the others too.

After giving up with cc(1) and using gcc(1), renaming my awk, getting
around various other bugs (not so damm stupid as the compiler flags
one), but many seem very basic, I got as far as trying to link GCL.

But then the compiler finds I don't have the BFD library. Correct me if
I am wrong, but that sort of thing should be picked up in the configure
script - it should attempt to link a program with that library and check
it links and gives sensible output.

If a library can't be found, the configure script should abort, perhaps
print a URL where it can be downloaded from - not create makefiles.

Within half an hour of trying to build GCL, I have uncovered at least 4
bugs. At that point I decided I'd not bother any more. I have reported
the bugs.

http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=16700
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=16699
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=16697
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=16696

All are still open, with nobody assigned to them.

Any suggestions of a better alternative, that will build Maxima?

--
Dave K MCSE.

MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica frontend)


Axiom uses GCL as its common lisp system.
Axiom builds GCL as part of the system build.
GCL seems to build fine on linux systems.
The same can't be said for Macs but Unix is not linux.
I have not tried to build it on Solaris but I suspect it
suffers the fate of all C programs. C programs are not
portable due to include/library/architecture issues.
Half of my career seems to have involved porting
"portable" C programs.

Camm Maguire, the GCL lead, is very responsive to
requests for support and bug reports. However, he might
not have access to Solaris.

Tim Daly
Axiom Lead Developer
Back to top
Raymond Toy
science forum beginner


Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Quote:
"Dave" == Dave <(from the UK)" <see-my-signature@southminster-branch-line.org.uk>> writes:

Dave> I tried to build GNU Common Lisp 2.6.7 (I've call it GCL from now
Dave> on), using a Sun Ultra 80 workstation which runs Solaris 10. The aim
Dave> was to run Maxima

I have succeeded in compiling gcl 2.6.7 on solaris, but it required
some hacking of the configure script and the generated makefile. It
was not easy.

But if you want to run maxima, you can also use clisp, cmucl, or sbcl
on Solaris. Clisp usually compiles on solaris without too much
problem. For cmucl and sbcl, I'd just grab the available binaries.
I'd grab the clisp binary too if it exists.

Ray
Back to top
Dave (from the UK)
science forum addict


Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

daly@axiom-developer.org wrote:

Quote:
Axiom uses GCL as its common lisp system.
Axiom builds GCL as part of the system build.
GCL seems to build fine on linux systems.

Yes, that does not surprise me.

Quote:
The same can't be said for Macs but Unix is not linux.

Well, I'd put it the other way around, as Linux came about well after UNIX!

Quote:
I have not tried to build it on Solaris but I suspect it
suffers the fate of all C programs. C programs are not
portable due to include/library/architecture issues.

I really don't feel it should be like that. I am the developer of

http://atlc.sourceforge.net/

and know it has been build on tru64, HP-UX, Solaris, various flavors of
Linux, IRIX, UNICOS (Cray), UNIXWARE, NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD. The
cray even has sizeof(short)==8, but with a bit of effort one can work
around that, so it builds on the Cray easily.

Quote:
Half of my career seems to have involved porting
"portable" C programs.

The autoconf/automake system cuts a lot of the work out, but one does
need to write the configuration files properly.

Quote:
Camm Maguire, the GCL lead, is very responsive to
requests for support and bug reports. However, he might
not have access to Solaris.

I've asked Sun before if they would provide public access Suns for
testing, but I think their attitude is that Solaris is a free download
for both SPARC and x86, so anyone can install it. But if the developer
needs Solaris, I am quite willing to provide access to a Solaris box.
But some of the issues, like the compiler adding in -Wall, can be tested
on any system. Even if you have gcc, I don't believe -Wall should be
added if the user has set CFLAGS and chose not to add it. Likewise
adding -O3 is dangerous, since that breaks compilations some times.

Quote:
Tim Daly
Axiom Lead Developer

Thanks for you comments. I assume you have the email for the developer

of GCL. If so, feel free to let him know of this post and if he wants I
can make a Solaris box available. The configure.in seems to have loads
of stuff that I doubt is necessary, since it seems to be copied from
another package and just modified where necessary. But without knowing
the how GCL is supposed to be built, it is not really practical for me
to hack it. The best I can do is hack the makefiles, which does not give
a long-term solution.


--
Dave K MCSE.

MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
Back to top
jacob navia
science forum beginner


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Martin Rubey a écrit :
Quote:
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:


You get what you pay for...


Did you ever read the warranties given by Mathematica/Maple/MuPAD/... ?

Martin

L I M I T E D WARRANTY

WRI warrants that the Product shall be free from defects in the physical media
for a period of ninety days following date of purchase when used under normal
conditions. THE FOREGOING WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED. WRI DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SOFTWARE IS FREE FROM ALL BUGS AND
OMISSIONS; THE PRODUCT IS SOLD AS IS. WRI MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCT OR THE SOFTWARE CONTAINED IN THE PRODUCT,
INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATIONS, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
INTEROPERABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ALL OF WHICH IS
EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED. WRI DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE
PROGRAM WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM WILL
BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING, YOU SHOULD
RECOGNIZE THAT ALL COMPLEX SOFTWARE SYSTEMS AND THEIR DOCUMENTATION CONTAIN
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS. WRI, ITS DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS SHALL NOT BE
RESPONSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION ON OR CORRECTIONS
TO ERRORS AND OMISSIONS DISCOVERED AT ANY TIME IN THE PRODUCT, WHETHER OR NOT
THEY ARE AWARE OF THE ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. WRI DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE USE OF
THE SOFTWARE FOR APPLICATIONS IN WHICH ERRORS OR OMISSIONS COULD THREATEN LIFE,
INJURY OR SIGNIFICANT LOSS. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, SO THIS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC
LEGAL RIGHTS, AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO
STATE. This License Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of
Illinois.




Well, with those guys you don't even get what you pay for!!!

:-)

I did not know that their license agreements were that limited.
Back to top
Dave (from the UK)
science forum addict


Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Raymond Toy wrote:

Quote:
I have succeeded in compiling gcl 2.6.7 on solaris, but it required
some hacking of the configure script and the generated makefile. It
was not easy.

Thanks. I must admit I'd lost interest after finding so many obviously
basic bugs quite quickly.

Quote:
But if you want to run maxima, you can also use clisp, cmucl, or sbcl
on Solaris. Clisp usually compiles on solaris without too much
problem. For cmucl and sbcl, I'd just grab the available binaries.
I'd grab the clisp binary too if it exists.

Cheers. I'm just downloading the clisp sources - I generally prefer to
compile myself.


Quote:
Ray


--
Dave K MCSE.

MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
Back to top
Dave (from the UK)
science forum addict


Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:28 am    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Raymond Toy wrote:

Quote:

I have succeeded in compiling gcl 2.6.7 on solaris, but it required
some hacking of the configure script and the generated makefile. It
was not easy.

But if you want to run maxima, you can also use clisp, cmucl, or sbcl
on Solaris. Clisp usually compiles on solaris without too much
problem. For cmucl and sbcl, I'd just grab the available binaries.
I'd grab the clisp binary too if it exists.

Ray

Did you build and test the libsigsegv library before installing clisp?
The docs say it is highly desirable, but whilst it builds OK (no
compiler warnings), it fails 2 of 4 tests if built with gcc and 3 of 4
tests if built with Sun's cc.

I understand Maxima has not been ported to Solaris, but I'll have a go
if it is possible.

--
Dave K MCSE.

MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica fronted)
Back to top
Rob Thorpe
science forum beginner


Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:00 am    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Dave (from the UK) wrote:
Quote:
Raymond Toy wrote:

I have succeeded in compiling gcl 2.6.7 on solaris, but it required
some hacking of the configure script and the generated makefile. It
was not easy.

Thanks. I must admit I'd lost interest after finding so many obviously
basic bugs quite quickly.

But if you want to run maxima, you can also use clisp, cmucl, or sbcl
on Solaris. Clisp usually compiles on solaris without too much
problem. For cmucl and sbcl, I'd just grab the available binaries.
I'd grab the clisp binary too if it exists.

Cheers. I'm just downloading the clisp sources - I generally prefer to
compile myself.

I can see why you would, but I avoid doing this for lisps. Clisp and
GCL use enough C that they can be bootstrapped with a C compiler. The
other free lisps though such as, CMUCL and SBCL are written mainly in
lisp. SBCL needs a common lisp compiler to build it and CMUCL needs a
binary CMUCL to build it.

Since lisps tend to be binary blobs there is little real improvement in
the reliability with which they interface to other libraries or
accuracy of build configuration. As there sometimes is when building C
programs from scratch.
Back to top
Pascal Bourguignon
science forum beginner


Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:15 am    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

"Rob Thorpe" <robert.thorpe@antenova.com> writes:

Quote:
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
Raymond Toy wrote:

I have succeeded in compiling gcl 2.6.7 on solaris, but it required
some hacking of the configure script and the generated makefile. It
was not easy.

Thanks. I must admit I'd lost interest after finding so many obviously
basic bugs quite quickly.

But if you want to run maxima, you can also use clisp, cmucl, or sbcl
on Solaris. Clisp usually compiles on solaris without too much
problem. For cmucl and sbcl, I'd just grab the available binaries.
I'd grab the clisp binary too if it exists.

Cheers. I'm just downloading the clisp sources - I generally prefer to
compile myself.

I can see why you would, but I avoid doing this for lisps. Clisp and
GCL use enough C that they can be bootstrapped with a C compiler. The
other free lisps though such as, CMUCL and SBCL are written mainly in
lisp. SBCL needs a common lisp compiler to build it and CMUCL needs a
binary CMUCL to build it.

Well, YMMV, but on my systems, there are more lisp compilers installed
than C compilers...


Quote:
Since lisps tend to be binary blobs there is little real improvement in
the reliability with which they interface to other libraries or
accuracy of build configuration. As there sometimes is when building C
programs from scratch.

Some implementations still aer quote modular and configurable.

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/

"Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it!
Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!"
Back to top
Rob Thorpe
science forum beginner


Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
Quote:
"Rob Thorpe" <robert.thorpe@antenova.com> writes:

Dave (from the UK) wrote:
Raymond Toy wrote:

I have succeeded in compiling gcl 2.6.7 on solaris, but it required
some hacking of the configure script and the generated makefile. It
was not easy.

Thanks. I must admit I'd lost interest after finding so many obviously
basic bugs quite quickly.

But if you want to run maxima, you can also use clisp, cmucl, or sbcl
on Solaris. Clisp usually compiles on solaris without too much
problem. For cmucl and sbcl, I'd just grab the available binaries.
I'd grab the clisp binary too if it exists.

Cheers. I'm just downloading the clisp sources - I generally prefer to
compile myself.

I can see why you would, but I avoid doing this for lisps. Clisp and
GCL use enough C that they can be bootstrapped with a C compiler. The
other free lisps though such as, CMUCL and SBCL are written mainly in
lisp. SBCL needs a common lisp compiler to build it and CMUCL needs a
binary CMUCL to build it.

Well, YMMV, but on my systems, there are more lisp compilers installed
than C compilers...

Yes, there are on mine too. This doesn't often help in building them
though. I think SBCL is the only CL that is written in CL. The others
are written in the language they implement themselves which is slightly
different.

Quote:
Since lisps tend to be binary blobs there is little real improvement in
the reliability with which they interface to other libraries or
accuracy of build configuration. As there sometimes is when building C
programs from scratch.

Some implementations still aer quote modular and configurable.

Yes, at build time. But generally once built all that remains are
~20MB image files containing everything.

C programs tend to link to many shared libraries. This often gives
building from source an advantage over binaries, because the configure
script is often more able to withstand libraries of slightly different
versions than an executable is. CL implementations don't normally have
this problem.
Back to top
daly@axiom-developer.org1
science forum beginner


Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Very Bugy GNU Common Lisp Reply with quote

Quote:
Thanks for you comments. I assume you have the email for the developer
of GCL. If so, feel free to let him know of this post and if he wants I
can make a Solaris box available. The configure.in seems to have loads
of stuff that I doubt is necessary, since it seems to be copied from
another package and just modified where necessary. But without knowing
the how GCL is supposed to be built, it is not really practical for me
to hack it. The best I can do is hack the makefiles, which does not give
a long-term solution.

I know you're going to hate this comment but I have to make it anyway.

There are a lot of open source projects that have very few active
developers.
That implies that all of the work to make code run, to add changes, to
track
moving standards, to innovate, document, manage servers, mailing lists,
bug lists, feature requests, and all the other myriad tasks of project
management are done by one or two people.

The theory is that when someone in the world needs something fixed they
report the bug and include a documented patch to the system which they
have tested against the other dozen platforms to make sure they didn't
break any other system.

The fact is that people download the code, type configure, make, and
then
are surprised when a bug occurs on their non-linux-mainstream setup.
The usual response is a blog complaint, the next most frequent is a
complaint to the project mailing list lacking precise information
showing
the nature of the bug. On rare occasions the developer gets access to
the
failing system to investigate the bug (in a strange environment over an
ssh
link lacking all of his tools). I have never seen a fully documented
and tested
patch submitted to any of the many projects I'm associated with.

Consider what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that Camm should
download Solaris isos, dedicate the time and effort to set up a whole
system
with all of the required development tools (does solaris have a
yum-like tool?).
That assumes that solaris has the drivers for his hardware which it
doesn't.
Then he has to learn the where solaris hides things (/mnt,
/usr/local/bin, etc).
Then he has to do the "simple job" (there is no such thing as a simple
job)
of "fixing the makefiles" (likely a non-gnu make is the default on
solaris).

Alternatively he can work as a user over a razor-blade-thin connection
to
reach a system that lacks his development tool chain, familiar command
set, and requiring special knowledge. Then he needs to hack
system-level
tools which he has no permission to install or modify. I've seen Camm
do
this so I know he can but it would seem "over the top" to suggest that
you
try to do the same in order to satisfy my need for your code.

You want to install a relatively small piece of code and find it hard
to set up.
But you expect Camm to download a whole operating system and tool chain
(configured the way your system is set up which might be nonstandard)
just
to simplify your life.

If you paid for such a service it would require a highly skilled
consultant
charging well over $100 per hour and taking well over a week of work
due
to the steep learning curve. So this is at least a $4000 "request".

I know this is going to look like a usenet "flame" but it's not
intended as one.
I'm simply pointing out the facts and the expectations.

Wouldn't it be "the right thing to do" and "in the spirit of open
source" and
all that motherhood to fix the code so it runs and send a patch? Your
patch might not work on other systems so Camm still has work to do
testing it and integrating it. That seems to use your skill and his
skills
in the best possible mix.

Google search for "Maguire GCL" gives his email address as the first
hit.
Be sure to copy the mailing list which is gcl-devel at gnu.org

Tim (the curmudgeon) Daly
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [22 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:20 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math » Symbolic
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts IUPAC Naming for Common Names? xoflram@gmail.com Chem 9 Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:52 pm
No new posts Common tangents -marko- Math 4 Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:10 pm
No new posts Spectra of common light sources (updated) Ioannis Chem 6 Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:05 pm
No new posts recompiling Maxima with ABCL (Lisp implemented in Java) robert.dodier@gmail.com Symbolic 3 Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:02 am
No new posts Common sense, checking of math "proofs" jstevh@msn.com Math 12 Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:47 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1715s ][ Queries: 16 (0.1366s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]