SBCL and CLISP manuals say that the image is not portable across
different platforms. I've played around with CLISP and found that it
successfully loads a core dump file from both Windows XP and 2003 (32
bit editions) . Loading the same file on a Debian machine fails with
an error message saying that the core has been saved using a different
CLISP version.
I was hoping that not compiling to native code would be an advantage
in this case. In your experience, how much portability can you get
(with any implementation) ?
Thanks.
blandest wrote:
> SBCL and CLISP manuals say that the image is not portable across
> different platforms. I've played around with CLISP and found that it
> successfully loads a core dump file from both Windows XP and 2003 (32
> bit editions) . Loading the same file on a Debian machine fails with
> an error message saying that the core has been saved using a different
> CLISP version.
> I was hoping that not compiling to native code would be an advantage
> in this case. In your experience, how much portability can you get
> (with any implementation) ?
SBCL core and fasl files are version- and platform-specific.
CLISP compiles to bytecode; fasls are generally portable, except when
*features* differ (e.g. missing :FFI).
In all cases, the definitive answer is what the manual says.
http://www.sbcl.org/manual/Saving-a-Core-Image.html
"There is absolutely no binary compatibility of core images between
different runtime support programs. Even runtimes built from the same
sources at different times are treated as incompatible for this purpose."
http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes/image.html
"Memory images are not portable across different platforms (in
contrast with platform-independent #P".fas" files). They are not even
portable across linking sets: image saved using the full linking set
cannot be used with the base runtime:"
So it appears that CLISP cores are not portable.
- Daniel
On Jan 25, 2:29 pm, blandest <··············@gmail.com> wrote:
> SBCL and CLISP manuals say that the image is not portable across
> different platforms. I've played around with CLISP and found that it
> successfully loads a core dump file from both Windows XP and 2003 (32
> bit editions) . Loading the same file on a Debian machine fails with
> an error message saying that the core has been saved using a different
> CLISP version.
> I was hoping that not compiling to native code would be an advantage
> in this case. In your experience, how much portability can you get
> (with any implementation) ?
>
> Thanks.
See http://www.is-research.de/info/vmlanguages/lisp.html for a list of
LISP implementations using the JVM.