From: ······@tezcat.com
Subject: Free Common Lisp for PPC?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3iunnkecd.fsf@sa-evanston-1-57.dsl.ais.net>
I wonder whether/where I can lay hands on a free version of Common
LISP that will work on my machine.

The obvious candidate would be CMU Common LISP, but is seems to
come either in binary form for a processor I don't have, or in source
form, including assembly code for a processor I don't have.  When
CMUCL says "Linux," it means "Linux on x86."  I'm running Linux on a
PowerPC 750.  

I know the hairy-chested thing to do is to dig into the assembly
source and translate it all into PPC.  I don't have the time, and
maybe I don't have the chest hair.

Is there a free CL for PowerPC Linuces?

-- 
Fritz Anderson			Evanston, Illinois
<fritza at tezcat, a commercial site>

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: Free Common Lisp for PPC?
Date: 
Message-ID: <6ikhql$qi4$1@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
> I wonder whether/where I can lay hands on a free version of Common
> LISP that will work on my machine. ... I'm running Linux on a PowerPC 750.

You can use CLISP,
ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/powerpc-mklinux-libc6/

Bruno
From: David Bakhash
Subject: Re: Free Common Lisp for PPC?
Date: 
Message-ID: <cxj67jl8kz3.fsf@hawk.bu.edu>
what are the downsides of CLISP?  I noticed that it's .fas files are
still ascii.  does that imply that they're somehow limited in how fast 
they can exectute (relative to, say, Allegro, which dumps some sort of 
binary in its .fasl files).

dave
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Free Common Lisp for PPC?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3103358221442461@naggum.no>
* David Bakhash
| what are the downsides of CLISP?

  mainly lack of commitment to ANSI Common Lisp.  the developers have many
  peculiar attitudes against several important aspects of the language, and
  have refused to implement necessary functionality to support writing
  ANSI-conforming Common Lisp code.  it is also slow in some areas and very
  fast in others, which skews your priorities in optimizing your code,
  basically away from writing your own abstractions and using "raw Common
  Lisp", because it does that really fast.  it has an amazingly fast bignum
  implementation, for instance.  it also sports variable-length floating
  point numbers.  such things may matter much to some.  conformance matters
  more to me, so I don't use CLISP, anymore.

| I noticed that it's .fas files are still ascii.  does that imply that
| they're somehow limited in how fast they can exectute (relative to, say,
| Allegro, which dumps some sort of binary in its .fasl files).

  this is a very faulty conclusion.  what you see is never what you get.
  external and internal representation of objects has long been a major
  issue with the Lisp family.  a list is not a list in memory, it's a
  number of cons cells and machine pointers and such.  the external form of
  the function objects in CLISP is ASCII for a number of good reasons.  the
  internal form is efficient in its own ways and is still machine bytes.
  the external form of various objects in Allegro's FASL files are binary
  for a number of good reasons.  the internal form is efficient in its own
  ways, but the FASL file still interpreted as a byte stream to conctruct
  them.  so it's same difference.

#:Erik
-- 
  Support organized crime: use Microsoft products!
From: Raymond Toy
Subject: Re: Free Common Lisp for PPC?
Date: 
Message-ID: <4n3eeoludi.fsf@rtp.ericsson.se>
Erik Naggum <······@naggum.no> writes:

> * David Bakhash
> | what are the downsides of CLISP?
> 
>   mainly lack of commitment to ANSI Common Lisp.  the developers have many
>   peculiar attitudes against several important aspects of the language, and
>   have refused to implement necessary functionality to support writing
>   ANSI-conforming Common Lisp code.  it is also slow in some areas and very

If you are talking about the float contagion rule, then this is being
changed right now.  The user will have a choice in how float contagion 
is handled, including an ANSI-CL conforming mode.

Ray
From: Philippe Laliberte
Subject: Re: Free Common Lisp for PPC?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3hg348g6d.fsf@terram.oeil.qc.ca>
Erik Naggum <······@naggum.no> writes:


>   point numbers.  such things may matter much to some.  conformance matters
>   more to me, so I don't use CLISP, anymore.
> 

	May I ask what your using nowadays? I'm looking for something
to port to Linuxppc so ideas are welcomed.

-- 

Bonne journ�e,
Have a nice day,

  _________________________________________________________________
|Philippe Laliberte         |        http://www.mlink.net/~arsphl/  |
| ___ Arsphl ___            |        http://oeil.qc.ca/             |
| ······@oeil.qc.ca         |        NO SPAM PLEASE                 |
  _________________________________________________________________
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Free Common Lisp for PPC?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3103404232374148@naggum.no>
* Philippe Laliberte
| May I ask what your using nowadays?

  Allegro CL (version 4.3.1 for Unix) from Franz Inc.

| I'm looking for something to port to Linuxppc so ideas are welcomed.

  I'm sorry, but I don't know about anything available for the Power PC.

#:Erik
-- 
  Support organized crime: use Microsoft products!