I would like Common Lisp to be available on another operating system.
This operating system is the Amiga Research Operating System or AROS.
http://www.aros.org
I help with this project in my spare time.
This operating system has it's own C, C++ compiler, but no Lisp at
all. Python has been ported to it.
I am a rookie at porting, but I am learning. I heard that porting an
implementation of CL might be rather difficult. I would really like CL
to be available on this OS. I would do it myself if I could. Is there
any other options in getting a CL implementation ported to AROS?
Do you guys have any other suggestions?
Thank you,
Paul
"novaburst" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I am a rookie at porting, but I am learning. I heard that porting an
> implementation of CL might be rather difficult.
Porting large programs is rarely easy, and Common Lisp implementations
tend to be complex beasts. Porting CMUCL or SBCL is probably very
hard, but CLISP, being written (mostly?) in C and with a track record
of reasonable portability, might be easier: http://clisp.org/
--
\ Troels
/\ Henriksen
(message (Hello 'novaburst)
(you :wrote :on '(7 Mar 2007 09:36:32 -0800))
(
n> to be available on this OS. I would do it myself if I could. Is there
n> any other options in getting a CL implementation ported to AROS?
n> Do you guys have any other suggestions?
if you want full Common Lisp, i think you can try porting ECL.
it's written in C, is relatively clean and straightforward.
does AROS have GNU utilities like make and sh?
without them you'll need to script build process yourself, so if they are
not available, consider porting them first.
so, you should configure it to minimal and try to start building process --
either with make/sh, or with your own scripts, or just launch C compiler
yourself :).
in this process, most likely you'll find some problems -- some headers or
functions are missing. you can either emulate it with available functions,
or omit.
after you resolve all problems, you'll have working Common Lisp
implemenation :).
also you can check CLISP -- it's also written in C. while i find it somewhat
more complicated, i've seen in it's docs that it is (or was) working under
Amiga, so maybe it's already ported (at least partly) for you, and you can
easily make it working?
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"?? ???? ??????? ?????")
On Mar 7, 1:10 pm, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> (message (Hello 'novaburst)
> (you :wrote :on '(7 Mar 2007 09:36:32 -0800))
> (
>
> n> to be available on this OS. I would do it myself if I could. Is there
> n> any other options in getting a CL implementation ported to AROS?
> n> Do you guys have any other suggestions?
>
> if you want full Common Lisp, i think you can try porting ECL.
> it's written in C, is relatively clean and straightforward.
>
> does AROS have GNU utilities like make and sh?
> without them you'll need to script build process yourself, so if they are
> not available, consider porting them first.
>
> so, you should configure it to minimal and try to start building process --
> either with make/sh, or with your own scripts, or just launch C compiler
> yourself :).
>
> in this process, most likely you'll find some problems -- some headers or
> functions are missing. you can either emulate it with available functions,
> or omit.
>
> after you resolve all problems, you'll have working Common Lisp
> implemenation :).
>
> also you can check CLISP -- it's also written in C. while i find it somewhat
> more complicated, i've seen in it's docs that it is (or was) working under
> Amiga, so maybe it's already ported (at least partly) for you, and you can
> easily make it working?
>
> )
> (With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
> "?? ???? ??????? ?????")
Yes, AROS does have utilities like make and sh.
ECL looks like a good one to try.
Unfortunately the Amiga port of CLISP will not help me. Because AROS
is designed for x86 architecture and not completely compatible with
classic AmigaOS.
I appreciate the tips. I knew of several CL implementations, but was
not aware of ECL. At this point it sounds like my best option.
"Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
[...]
> does AROS have GNU utilities like make and sh?
It's either "GNU utilities like gmake and bash" or "Unix utilities
like make and sh". Remember, GNU is not Unix. ;-)
PS: Sorry for being totally anal and off-topic.
--
Wolfram Fenske
A: Yes.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
novaburst wrote:
> I would like Common Lisp to be available on another operating system.
> This operating system is the Amiga Research Operating System or AROS.
Thanks for the memories!
I remember the early 90's when I was on my project placement for my MSc.
I had an Amiga, and had read Hofdstadter's (??) Goedel Escher Bach
extolling the virtues of Lisp, IIRC. I actually downloaded a Lisp for
the Amiga, and read some of the documentation. I didn't use it
seriously, mind.
It's only relatively recently that I've really tried my hand at Lisp. In
the intervening years I have used FORTRAN, C, C++, Java (yeuck!), Perl
(double yeuck - I quickly tired of it), Visual Basic, and Python; plus
I've prodded a stick at a few other languages.
"novaburst" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I would like Common Lisp to be available on another operating system.
> This operating system is the Amiga Research Operating System or AROS.
> http://www.aros.org
> I help with this project in my spare time.
>
> This operating system has it's own C, C++ compiler, but no Lisp at
> all. Python has been ported to it.
> I am a rookie at porting, but I am learning. I heard that porting an
> implementation of CL might be rather difficult. I would really like CL
> to be available on this OS. I would do it myself if I could. Is there
> any other options in getting a CL implementation ported to AROS?
> Do you guys have any other suggestions?
CLISP used to run on AmigaOS. Since AROS is intended to be compatible,
I wonder if you'd even have more to do than ./configure && make install
But I'm not sure recent versions of CLISP are still working on it.
You could first identify the last AmigaOS version of CLISP and try
that, and then backmerge the AmigaOS specific parts to a recent
version of CLISP.
Or indeed, if you have a unix/posix layer, you can just compile CLISP
with nothing specific to the AmigaOS (there was a specific AFFI, and
perhaps some other modules).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Un chat errant
se soulage
dans le jardin d'hiver
Shiki
On Mar 7, 9:36 am, "novaburst" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> This operating system has it's own C, C++ compiler, but no Lisp at
> all. Python has been ported to it.
I'm planning to help port ECL to AIX. The only tricky part is that
you have to hack the Autoconf scripts so that it gets the shared-
object compiler flags right -- of course it can't deduce them from an
arbitrary compiler (wouldn't that be nice? ;P ), and at the moment
(correct me if I'm wrong, Juanjo) the ECL configure script doesn't
take PICFLAGS as an environment variable, does it?
Once you do that, then as long as you have a *nix-flavored environment
(a reasonable Make implementation and shell), you shouldn't have any
problems with ECL.
mfh
On 8 mar, 21:48, ·············@gmail.com" <············@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:36 am, "novaburst" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This operating system has it's own C, C++ compiler, but no Lisp at
> > all. Python has been ported to it.
>
> I'm planning to help portECLto AIX. The only tricky part is that
> you have to hack the Autoconf scripts so that it gets the shared-
> object compiler flags right -- of course it can't deduce them from an
> arbitrary compiler (wouldn't that be nice? ;P ), and at the moment
> (correct me if I'm wrong, Juanjo) theECLconfigure script doesn't
> take PICFLAGS as an environment variable, does it?
Well, as you say, the trickiest part is to find out the right flags
for compiling object files so that they can be dynamically loaded in
memory. That is highly nonportable, and there are even some platforms
out there which offer multiple variants (take OS X), with various
levels of variables being exported, etc. I doubt one can automate this
completely, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
> Once you do that, then as long as you have a *nix-flavored environment
> (a reasonable Make implementation and shell), you shouldn't have any
> problems withECL.
Actually, if you do not care for dynamically loaded object files and
are happy with source files and bytecodes, ECL is as portable as
CLISP: just chose the statically linked version. You can still use ECL
to build standalone executables if you wish. It is only the native
FASL files which will be missing.
Juanjo