Hi,
I use a SuSE 7.1 System with gcc 2.95.2 and gcc 2.95.3 but never was able
to
compile that gcl cvs or other release.
I only get an error saying (while compiling the cvs version):
In file included from rsym.c:19:
rsym_elf.c: In function `main':
rsym_elf.c:72: warning: return type of `main' is not `int'
../xbin/if-exists /usr/u9/wfs/schelter "../xbin/inc-version"
../xbin/if-exists saved_gcl "rm -f saved_gcl"
cat init_gcl.lsp | \
sed -e "s"DATE"Version(`cat ../majvers`.`cat ../minvers`) `date`g" \
-e 'ssaved_gclsaved_gclg' \
-e 'slinks t)links t)(setq compiler::*cc* "gcc -pipe -fwritable-strings
-DVOL=volatile -I/home/ra/gcl/o -fsigned-char")(si::build-symbol-table)g' \
-e "sGCLDIR/home/ra/gclg" \
-e "s(defun lisp-imp(setq si::*gcl-version* `cat ../minvers`
si::*gcl-major-version* `cat ../majvers`)(defun lisp-impg" \
-e "s:GCL-1:GCL-"`cat ../majvers`":g" > foo
../unixport/raw_gcl ../unixport/ -libdir /home/ra/gcl/ < foo
GCL (GNU Common Lisp) April 1994 32768 pages
Unrecoverable error: GBC is not enabled.
make[1]: *** [saved_gcl] Error 134
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ra/gcl/unixport'
make: *** [all] Error 2
What does "GBC is not enabled" mean?
I don't know what to do. I also wasn't able to compile older versions of
gcl.
Could you please give me any help/advice? Where may I get advice to compile
gcc? I really would appreciate your help to get gcl and finally maxima up
and
running.
Raphael
I need gcl to compile maxima. Can I replace gcl with cmucl in that case?
How does Maxima run with cmucl?
Raphael
Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> Good luck. I have never been able to compile gcl, and cmucl is far
> better anyway...
>
> /Andreas
>
Raphael Arlitt <··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> I need gcl to compile maxima. Can I replace gcl with cmucl in that
> case?
There should be patches in the CMUCL site to compile MAXIMA.
> How does Maxima run with cmucl?
Most likely better.
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
>>>>> "Marco" == Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
Marco> Raphael Arlitt <··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
>> I need gcl to compile maxima. Can I replace gcl with cmucl in that
>> case?
Marco> There should be patches in the CMUCL site to compile MAXIMA.
You can get the CVS sources for maxima, which has works with CMUCL.
It even supports maxima's describe function. Almost all of the tests
pass. (It fails on the use of errcatch in a few cases.)
>> How does Maxima run with cmucl?
Marco> Most likely better.
Not really. At best it's the same. I think speed is about the same.
Plotting is not supported. Errors kick you into CMUCL's debugger and
there's no way to get back to top-level. (Mostly because no one has
created the right top-level loop for maxima.)
Ray
Raymond Toy <···@rtp.ericsson.se> writes:
> >> How does Maxima run with cmucl?
>
> Marco> Most likely better.
>
> Not really. At best it's the same. I think speed is about the same.
> Plotting is not supported. Errors kick you into CMUCL's debugger and
> there's no way to get back to top-level. (Mostly because no one has
> created the right top-level loop for maxima.)
>
> Ray
Did you try
(maxima::macsyma-top-level)
??
This works for me when running maxima-5.4 with the CMUCL patches.
Yours, Nicolas.
>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Neuss <·····@ortler.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
Nicolas> Did you try
Nicolas> (maxima::macsyma-top-level)
Nicolas> ??
Nicolas> This works for me when running maxima-5.4 with the CMUCL patches.
The current CVS sources has user::run which does some setup and then
runs macsyma-top-level. But if you try
plot2d(sin(x), [x,0,5]);
(which doesn't work yet with CMUCL) you get into CMUCL's debugger, and
you can't return to top-level.
Ray
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> > How does Maxima run with cmucl?
>
> Most likely better.
>
I doubt it, being that the gcl maintainer and maxima guy are one and
the same. He specifically advises use of gcl with maxima.
"First get latest version of gcl and compile it.
First get latest version of maximaand compile it.
do make install "
Peter
Peter Wood wrote:
>
> Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>
> > > How does Maxima run with cmucl?
> >
> > Most likely better.
> >
> I doubt it, being that the gcl maintainer and maxima guy are one and
> the same. He specifically advises use of gcl with maxima.
>
> "First get latest version of gcl and compile it.
> First get latest version of maximaand compile it.
> do make install "
>
> Peter
It depends on what you mean by "better". Certainly the details of
the interaction between the Maxima source and GCL tend to be
better debugged since Bill Schelter can change either one.
If "better" means "can run faster" or "is more reliable"
or "is more convenient to debug" or "is smaller"
then it is not obvious how other lisps might compare.
I would be interested in seeing some benchmarks. Schelter
provides a test suite, which could be used as a basis for
comparison, though simple speed tests are easy to set up.
e.g. (showtime:all, ratsimp( (a+b+c+d+1)^15) )$ or some variant of that.
I think Schelter is doing a great public service
making Maxima available free.
RJF
In article <·················@cs.berkeley.edu>, "Richard Fateman"
<·······@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Certainly the details of the
> interaction between the Maxima source and GCL tend to be better debugged since
> Bill Schelter can change either one.
Right. Furthermore, I am sure maxima is much better tested under gcl than any
other lisp. There can't be very many people using maxima with a lisp other than
gcl -- it required quite a bit of effort to do so until recently.
> If "better" means "can run faster" or
> "is more reliable" or "is more convenient to debug" or "is smaller" then it is
> not obvious how other lisps might compare.
Exactly. I'll bet clisp is the slowest choice, but it has GNU readline support,
which makes it about 1000 times more comfortable to use from the command line.
Is that "better"?
> I would be interested in seeing
> some benchmarks
As would I. It would be great to produce a reasonable benchmarking suite for
maxima.
>. Schelter provides a test suite, which could be used as a
> basis for comparison, though simple speed tests are easy to set up. e.g.
> (showtime:all, ratsimp((a+b+c+d+1)^15) )$ or some variant of that.
Hey! There's a fun game. I tried your simple test on my 800 MHz Linux machine.
The results are appended at the end of this message. Unfortunately, I'm a very bad
benchmarker: I used different versions of maxima with each lisp implementation.
(5.4 with GCL, 5.5 current cvs with CMU and 5.5 cvs as of a few weeks ago with
Clisp.) I also don't have the most recent versions of GCL and Clisp. If I had a
more realistic benchmark I would try a better test.
> I think Schelter is doing a great public service making Maxima available
> free.
Yes. He deserves a great deal of credit.
--Jim Amundson
The timings. Notice that I used (a+b+c+d+1)^35 instead of (a+b+c+d+1)^15; the
latter was too quick.
Please see the above text for disclaimers as to why this is a bad comparison.
GCL:
---------------------------------------------
|abacus>maxima
GCL (GNU Common Lisp) Version(2.3) Tue Mar 21 14:15:15 CST 2000
Licensed under GNU Library General Public License
Contains Enhancements by W. Schelter
Loading init.lsp
Finished loading init.lsp
Maxima 5.4 Tue Mar 21 14:14:45 CST 2000 (with enhancements by W. Schelter).
Licensed under the GNU Public License (see file COPYING)
(C1) (showtime:all,ratsimp((a+b+c+d+1)^35 ))$
Evaluation took 11.03 seconds (11.53 elapsed)
---------------------------------------------
Clisp:
---------------------------------------------
|abacus>clisp -M maxima-clisp.mem
i i i i i i i ooooo o ooooooo ooooo ooooo
I I I I I I I 8 8 8 8 8 o 8 8
I \ `+' / I 8 8 8 8 8 8
\ `-+-' / 8 8 8 ooooo 8oooo
`-__|__-' 8 8 8 8 8
| 8 o 8 8 o 8 8
------+------ ooooo 8oooooo ooo8ooo ooooo 8
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Michael Stoll 1992, 1993
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Marcus Daniels 1994-1997
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Pierpaolo Bernardi, Sam Steingold 1998
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Sam Steingold 1999
Maxima 5.5 Tue Feb 27 21:46:20 CST 2001 (with enhancements by W. Schelter).
Licensed under the GNU Public License (see file COPYING)
(C1) (showtime:all,ratsimp((a+b+c+d+1)^35))$
Evaluation took 13.23 seconds (13.47 elapsed)
---------------------------------------------
|
CMUCL:
|---------------------------------------------
|abacus>lisp -core maxima.core
CMU Common Lisp 18c, running on abacus.fnal.gov
Send questions and bug reports to your local CMU CL maintainer,
or to ··········@cons.org. and ·········@cons.org. respectively.
Loaded subsystems:
Python 1.0, target Intel x86
CLOS based on PCL version: September 16 92 PCL (f)
Warning: These variables are undefined:
MAXIMA::$FILE_SEARCH_DEMO MAXIMA::$FILE_SEARCH_LISP
MAXIMA::$FILE_SEARCH_MAXIMA MAXIMA::$FILE_SEARCH_USAGE
/apps/gnu/src/regex-0.12/regex.o not found .. skipping regexp stuff for describeMaxima 5.5 Fri Apr 6 15:15:13 CDT 2001 (with enhancements by W. Schelter).
Licensed under the GNU Public License (see file COPYING)
(C1) (showtime:all,ratsimp((a+b+c+d+1)^35))$
Evaluation took 4.54 seconds (4.99 elapsed)
---------------------------------------------
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:32:24 -0500, "James Amundson" <········@fnal.gov>
wrote:
> Exactly. I'll bet clisp is the slowest choice, but it has GNU readline support,
> which makes it about 1000 times more comfortable to use from the command line.
> Is that "better"?
What about running Maxima with a different Lisp from Emacs in shell mode?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:32:24 -0500, "James Amundson" <········@fnal.gov>
> wrote:
>> Exactly. I'll bet clisp is the slowest choice, but it has GNU
>> readline support, which makes it about 1000 times more comfortable
>> to use from the command line. Is that "better"?
> What about running Maxima with a different Lisp from Emacs in shell mode?
One thing that "*inferior whatever* mode _doesn't_ buy you is the
ability to hit "tab" and get a list of possible command completions.
[I'd be happy to discover that I'm wrong about this...]
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" ·@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://vip.hyperusa.com/~cbbrowne/resume.html
"It's difficult to extract sense from strings, but they're the only
communication coin we can count on." -- Alan Perlis
········@hex.net writes:
> One thing that "*inferior whatever* mode _doesn't_ buy you is the
> ability to hit "tab" and get a list of possible command completions.
> [I'd be happy to discover that I'm wrong about this...]
ACL's ELI (Emacs-Lisp Interface) has this with M-Tab. And I find M-/
very useful as well.
--
Janis Dzerins
If million people say a stupid thing it's still a stupid thing.
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Fateman <·······@cs.berkeley.edu> writes:
Richard> I would be interested in seeing some benchmarks. Schelter
Richard> provides a test suite, which could be used as a basis for
Richard> comparison, though simple speed tests are easy to set up.
Richard> e.g. (showtime:all, ratsimp( (a+b+c+d+1)^15) )$ or some variant of that.
I happen to have gcl+maxima and cmucl+maxima. On an 300 MHz Ultra 30,
the above test gives with gcl gives 0.67 to 0.91 sec, with 0.7 or so
as the average. cmucl gives a fairly consistent 0.48 sec.
However, maxima has a time test routine that I think basically
factors (x+y+z)^10 and (x+y+z)^20. Each is done ten times. The
results here are
gcl:
For 10 times factor p10:
real time : 1.000 secs
run time : 0.560 secs
For 10 times factor p20:
real time : 3.000 secs
run time : 2.960 secs
cmucl:
For 10 times factor p10:
Evaluation took:
0.57f0 seconds of real time
0.54f0 seconds of user run time
0.03f0 seconds of system run time
0 page faults and
3232400 bytes consed.
For 10 times factor p20:
Evaluation took:
2.8f0 seconds of real time
2.44f0 seconds of user run time
0.24f0 seconds of system run time
[Run times include 0.2f0 seconds GC run time]
0 page faults and
15299840 bytes consed.
So, they're roughly the same.
Richard> I think Schelter is doing a great public service
Richard> making Maxima available free.
Hear, hear!
Ray
On 10 Apr 2001 19:04:23 +0200, Peter Wood <··········@worldonline.dk>
wrote:
> I doubt it, being that the gcl maintainer and maxima guy are one and
> the same. He specifically advises use of gcl with maxima.
What GCL or Common Lisp features does Maxima rely on that are no longer
supported, or were changed in incompatible ways, by more up to date
language implementations such as CLISP or CMU CL?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
>>>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
Paolo> On 10 Apr 2001 19:04:23 +0200, Peter Wood <··········@worldonline.dk>
Paolo> wrote:
>> I doubt it, being that the gcl maintainer and maxima guy are one and
>> the same. He specifically advises use of gcl with maxima.
Paolo> What GCL or Common Lisp features does Maxima rely on that are no longer
Paolo> supported, or were changed in incompatible ways, by more up to date
Paolo> language implementations such as CLISP or CMU CL?
Based on the recent 5.5-b3 version of maxima, I think there's really
only one reason left to use gcl: plotting.
Just need someone to replace the C stuff with lisp or use a FFI to do
it. Or get the gnuplot method working again. (This doesn't seem to
work on gcl either, but I haven't tried very hard to make it work.)
Ray
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:59:24 +0200, Raphael Arlitt
<··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> How does Maxima run with cmucl?
There are patches--I think by Sam Steingold--for running Maxima under both
CMU CL and CLISP.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
Hi,
You want to get the latest version of Maxima; that's 5.5. For that, you'll
need the latest version of gcl. Go to
ftp://ftp.ma.utexas.edu/pub/gcl/
and get gcl-2.3.8-beta.tgz . Then go to
ftp://ftp.ma.utexas.edu/pub/maxima/
and get maxima-5.5-beta.tgz (what I'm running) or maxima-5.5-beta3.tgz
(haven't tried it).
I found that 5.5 was a big improvement over 5.4. I had no problems
compiling either, but I'm running Mandrake; Suse may be putting needed
files where the configure and make scripts can't find them? If it's giving
you troubles, you might want to try a binary. I believe that someone has
posted a link to a binary or RPM of 5.5, but I can't find the link!! Maybe
you could try asking also on sci.math.symbolic for a link to an RPM for the
latest Maxima. If you perservere and figure out what your problem with
compiling was, please post your results here.
Good luck,
Nels
Raphael Arlitt wrote:
> I need gcl to compile maxima. Can I replace gcl with cmucl in that case?
>
> How does Maxima run with cmucl?
>
> Raphael
>
> Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > Good luck. I have never been able to compile gcl, and cmucl is far
> > better anyway...
> >
> > /Andreas
> >
Thank you Nels,
the procedure you described is exactly what I have done.
I just can't compile gcl on SuSE. It has also been included as an
rpm on SuSE but that gives me a segentation fault :-(
So I tried to get that binary (also done before) at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/symaxx/
That can be installed but gives
>maxima
Unrecoverable error: Segmentation violation..
Aborted
and xmaxima starts up but gives me ...
>xmaxima
Unrecoverable error: Segmentation violation..
Error in startup script: runOneMaxima timed out
while executing
"error "runOneMaxima timed out""
(procedure "runOneMaxima" line 12)
invoked from within
"runOneMaxima $w"
(procedure "doit" line 68)
invoked from within
"doit .maxima"
(file "/usr/lib/maxima-5.5/bin/xmaxima" line 12483)
I have a pretty much STANDARD SuSE 7.1 professional but I use
Kernel 2.4.2 with KDE 2.1.1.
It seems like I tried everything. I posted my error message
in a subthread of this thread....
Helpless,
Raphael
nels tomlinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You want to get the latest version of Maxima; that's 5.5. For that,
> you'll
> need the latest version of gcl. Go to
>
> ftp://ftp.ma.utexas.edu/pub/gcl/
>
> and get gcl-2.3.8-beta.tgz . Then go to
>
> ftp://ftp.ma.utexas.edu/pub/maxima/
>
> and get maxima-5.5-beta.tgz (what I'm running) or maxima-5.5-beta3.tgz
> (haven't tried it).
>
> I found that 5.5 was a big improvement over 5.4. I had no problems
> compiling either, but I'm running Mandrake; Suse may be putting needed
> files where the configure and make scripts can't find them? If it's
> giving
> you troubles, you might want to try a binary. I believe that someone has
> posted a link to a binary or RPM of 5.5, but I can't find the link!!
> Maybe you could try asking also on sci.math.symbolic for a link to an RPM
> for the
> latest Maxima. If you perservere and figure out what your problem with
> compiling was, please post your results here.
>
> Good luck,
> Nels
>
>
> Raphael Arlitt wrote:
>
>> I need gcl to compile maxima. Can I replace gcl with cmucl in that case?
>>
>> How does Maxima run with cmucl?
>>
>> Raphael
>>
>> Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
>>
>> > Good luck. I have never been able to compile gcl, and cmucl is far
>> > better anyway...
>> >
>> > /Andreas
>> >
>
>
Raphael Arlitt <··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> Thank you Nels,
> the procedure you described is exactly what I have done.
> I just can't compile gcl on SuSE. It has also been included as an
> rpm on SuSE but that gives me a segentation fault :-(
>
> So I tried to get that binary (also done before) at
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/symaxx/
> That can be installed but gives
> >maxima
As of a few weeks ago there were 2 binaries. I downloaded one of them
& it was broken. I didn't try the other one.
--
Harvey Stein
Bloomberg LP
·······@bloomberg.net
Raphael Arlitt <··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> I use a SuSE 7.1 System with gcc 2.95.2 and gcc 2.95.3 but never
> was able to compile that gcl cvs or other release.
I'm running Redhat 6.1 & had no problem whatsoever building gcl &
maxima from gcl-2.3.8-beta.tgz & maxima-5.5-beta.tgz. Even the gcl/tk
demo ran ok. gcc & glibc versions:
[blinky maxima]$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/specs
gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)
[blinky maxima]$ rpm -q glibc
glibc-2.1.2-11
--
Harvey Stein
Bloomberg LP
·······@bloomberg.net
Raphael Arlitt <··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> Hi,
> I use a SuSE 7.1 System with gcc 2.95.2 and gcc 2.95.3 but never was
> able to compile that gcl cvs or other release.
That's king of funny -- gcl is the only KCL descendant I *haven't* had
problems compiling. If you can't get it to compile, there is a Debian
package of gcl:
<http://packages.debian.org/stable/interpreters/gcl.html>
I don't know what package management system SuSE uses, but if it's an
alien-supported format, you should be able to use the debian package:
<http://www.kitenet.net/programs/alien/>
Tom
Raphael Arlitt <··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> Hi,
> I use a SuSE 7.1 System with gcc 2.95.2 and gcc 2.95.3 but never was able
> to
> compile that gcl cvs or other release.
What other releases have you tried? I have compiled 2.3.8beta without
problems with gcc 2.95.2. Try that version.
Peter
Unfortunately I tried them all - none works. They also tend to
give me different error messages - it is pretty unsatisfying. I tried
to compile all versions with gcc-2.95.2 and gcc-2.95.3 ... without any
success and some frustration.
Hm, Andreas in the other post says something about cmucl. Is that some
kind of replacement of gcl? Can I run (and compile) maxima with cmucl?
Raphael
Peter Wood wrote:
> Raphael Arlitt <··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>> I use a SuSE 7.1 System with gcc 2.95.2 and gcc 2.95.3 but never was able
>> to
>> compile that gcl cvs or other release.
>
> What other releases have you tried? I have compiled 2.3.8beta without
> problems with gcc 2.95.2. Try that version.
>
> Peter
>
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:47:08 +0200, Raphael Arlitt
<··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> Hm, Andreas in the other post says something about cmucl. Is that some
> kind of replacement of gcl? Can I run (and compile) maxima with cmucl?
CMU CL is a popular and actively maintained Common Lisp implementation:
http://www.cons.org/cmucl
http://www.laas.fr/~emarsden/cons.org/
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
Raphael Arlitt <··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> Unfortunately I tried them all - none works. They also tend to
> give me different error messages - it is pretty unsatisfying.
OK, what error do you get when you try to compile the latest version
of gcl (2.3.8beta). I have just recompiled mine to check and it
compiles out of the box using gcc-2.95.2 and glibc-2.2.
Peter
Thanks all,
I don't know if this error message is of any help...
I first see this MEMORY MAY BE DAMAGED error but
it runs further and further until it gets to this unsuccessful end.
I omitted many lines...
Not to say something good or bad about any distro - but I tried to compile
on many SuSE versions on different machines - it never run through. The
problem is that I don't know what to do different. I compiled it myself on
debian and it works - just this machine doesn't belong me :-(
Is there any SuSE user out there who uses maxima or gcl?
Appreciating any help!
Raphael
sed -e "s^G"DATE"^GVersion(`cat ../majvers`.`cat ../minvers`) `date`^Gg" \
-e 's^Gsaved_gcl^Gsaved_gcl^Gg' \
-e 's^Glinks t)^Glinks t)(setq compiler::*cc* "gcc -pipe -fwritable-strings
-DVOL=volatile -I/home/ra/gcl-2.3.8/o
-fsigned-char")(si::build-symbol-table)^Gg' \
-e "s^GGCLDIR^G/home/ra/gcl-2.3.8^Gg" \
-e "s^G(defun lisp-imp^G(setq si::*gcl-version* `cat ../minvers`
si::*gcl-major-version* `cat ../majvers`)(defun lisp-imp^Gg" \
-e "s:GCL-1:GCL-"`cat ../majvers`":g" > foo
../unixport/raw_gcl ../unixport/ -libdir /home/ra/gcl-2.3.8/ < foo
GCL (GNU Common Lisp) April 1994 32768 pages
loading ../lsp/export.lsp
Initializing ../lsp/defmacro.o
Initializing ../lsp/evalmacros.o
Initializing ../lsp/top.o
Initializing ../lsp/module.o
loading ../lsp/autoload.lsp
>
Error: Caught fatal error [memory may be damaged]
Error signalled by an anonymous function.
Broken at SYSTEM::BREAK-LEVEL. Type :H for Help.
>>
#<"COMPILER" package>
COMPILER>>
#<"SYSTEM" package>
SYSTEM>>
*COMMAND-ARGS*
SYSTEM>>
#<"USER" package>
>>
#<"LISP" package>
LISP>>
#<"SLOOP" package>
SLOOP>>
6
SLOOP>>
#<"USER" package>
>>
Loading ../gcl-tk/tk-package.lsp
Finished loading ../gcl-tk/tk-package.lsp
T
>>Initializing ../lsp/predlib.o
Initializing ../lsp/setf.o
Initializing ../lsp/arraylib.o
Initializing ../lsp/assert.o
Initializing ../lsp/defstruct.o
Initializing ../lsp/describe.o
-----------Many lines omitted here ----------
End of Pass 2.
OPTIMIZE levels: Safety=2, Space=3, Speed=3
Finished compiling collectfn.lsp.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ra/gcl-2.3.8/cmpnew'
(cd lsp ; make info.o)
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ra/gcl-2.3.8/lsp'
make[1]: `info.o' is up to date.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ra/gcl-2.3.8/lsp'
Make of GCL 2.3.8 completed.
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ra/gcl-2.3.8/gcl-tk'
cat gcltksrv.in | sed -e "s:TK_LIBRARY=.*:TK_LIBRARY=/usr/lib/tk8.3:g" \
-e "s:TCL_LIBRARY=.*:TCL_LIBRARY=/usr/lib/tcl8.3:g" \
-e "s:TK_XLIB_DIR=.*:TK_XLIB_DIR=:g" \
-e "s:GCL_TK_DIR=.*:GCL_TK_DIR=/home/ra/gcl-2.3.8/gcl-tk:g" > gcltksrv
chmod a+x gcltksrv
echo "(compile-file \"tkl.lisp\" :c-file nil :c-debug nil)" |
../unixport/saved_gcl
GCL (GNU Common Lisp) Version(2.3.8) Wed Apr 11 16:09:20 CEST 2001
Licensed under GNU Library General Public License
Contains Enhancements by W. Schelter
>
Error: Caught fatal error [memory may be damaged]
Fast links are on: do (si::use-fast-links nil) for debugging
Error signalled by FUNCALL.
Error: -1 is an illegal frs index.
Fast links are on: do (si::use-fast-links nil) for debugging
Error signalled by SYSTEM:UNIVERSAL-ERROR-HANDLER.
Error: -1 is an illegal frs index.
Fast links are on: do (si::use-fast-links nil) for debugging
Error signalled by SYSTEM:UNIVERSAL-ERROR-HANDLER.
I cut many lines here. --------------->-&----------
Error: -1 is an illegal frs index.
Fast links are on: do (si::use-fast-links nil) for debugging
Error signalled by SYSTEM:UNIVERSAL-ERROR-HANDLER.
Unrecoverable error: bind stack overflow.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ra/gcl-2.3.8/gcl-tk'
(cd info ; make)
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ra/gcl-2.3.8/info'
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ra/gcl-2.3.8/info'
~
~
Peter Wood wrote:
> Raphael Arlitt <··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
>
>> Unfortunately I tried them all - none works. They also tend to
>> give me different error messages - it is pretty unsatisfying.
>
> OK, what error do you get when you try to compile the latest version
> of gcl (2.3.8beta). I have just recompiled mine to check and it
> compiles out of the box using gcc-2.95.2 and glibc-2.2.
>
> Peter
>
Raphael Arlitt <··············@mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> Thanks all,
> I don't know if this error message is of any help...
> I first see this MEMORY MAY BE DAMAGED error but
> it runs further and further until it gets to this unsuccessful end.
> I omitted many lines...
>
> Not to say something good or bad about any distro - but I tried to compile
> on many SuSE versions on different machines - it never run through. The
> problem is that I don't know what to do different. I compiled it myself on
> debian and it works - just this machine doesn't belong me :-(
>
> Is there any SuSE user out there who uses maxima or gcl?
I find it quite weird that it doesn't build on SUSE. What on earth do
they do differently to everyone else??? I am interested to find out,
so if you want, you can send me the output from "./configure" and
"make". I don't guarantee I can help, though.
(I have built it (gcl) on RedHat(6.0) and my own home-grown system without
problems.)
Raphael Arlitt wrote:
> Thanks all,
> I don't know if this error message is of any help...
> I first see this MEMORY MAY BE DAMAGED error but
> it runs further and further until it gets to this unsuccessful end.
> I omitted many lines...
>
> Not to say something good or bad about any distro - but I tried to compile
> on many SuSE versions on different machines - it never run through. The
> problem is that I don't know what to do different. I compiled it myself on
> debian and it works - just this machine doesn't belong me :-(
>
> Is there any SuSE user out there who uses maxima or gcl?
>
Dear Raphael, I'm also on SUSE 7.1, with gcc 2.96, and I get the same error
I'm repeating the message here:
(Fast links are on: do (si::use-fast-links nil) for debugging
Error signalled by FUNCALL.
Error: -1 is an illegal frs index.
Fast links are on: do (si::use-fast-links nil) for debugging
Error signalled by SYSTEM:UNIVERSAL-ERROR-HANDLER.
And like you, I also tried the binaries,a nd they give me segmentation
violation. Darn. Wish I could use MAXIMA. I guess I have to get the new
redhat distro.
/george moudry, los angeles
>>>>> "george" == george <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
george> And like you, I also tried the binaries,a nd they give me segmentation
george> violation. Darn. Wish I could use MAXIMA. I guess I have to get the new
george> redhat distro.
The latest maxima sources are supposed to have support for clisp and
cmucl. I know cmucl works.
Ray