Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!uunet!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Squeezing more speed out of LISP.
Message-ID: <CyAM57.5Bq@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <Cy5B7J.J4o@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <MARCOXA.94Oct24091954@mosaic.nyu.edu> <TFB.94Oct25175047@scott.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 18:31:54 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <TFB.94Oct25175047@scott.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> tfb@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes:
>* Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>> (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>    Like it or not, a port to FreeBSD, NetBSD, 386BSD, or Linux
>>    would be vastly more useful to me and many like me.
>
>> Note that I don't necessarily like the WindowsNT option.
>
>Am I right in thinking that retargeting the compiler to produce 386
>code is a lot more work than making things run on a new OS?  If this
>is true it should be possible to have linux/windows/BSD versions quite
>easily once one can get 386 code at all.

I think that's so, although Linux is annoyingly System-V-like.

Not many registers seems to be one problem for the 386 port,
if I recall correctly.

In any case, I would like to see some version of CMU CL survive
and indeed get more widespread use.

-- jeff



