Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!dircon!rheged!simon
From: simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke)
Subject: Port CMU CL -> Linux (was Re: Squeezing more speed out of LISP)
Message-ID: <CyAvuz.6zL@rheged.dircon.co.uk>
Organization: none. Disorganization: total.
References: <Cy0GnM.2AG@rheged.dircon.co.uk> <Cy5B7J.J4o@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <MARCOXA.94Oct24091954@mosaic.nyu.edu> <TFB.94Oct25175047@scott.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 22:01:46 GMT
Lines: 29

In article <TFB.94Oct25175047@scott.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Tim Bradshaw <tfb@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>* 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.
>

It's my understanding, at a preliminary stage and having only just
begun working with the documentation, that retargeting the compiler
and possibly optimising the garbage collector for Intel 32 bit will be
the big challenge, and that if that is successful, retargeting to other
OSs with the same processor architecture should then be less of a
challenge (tho' not necessarily 'quite easily' :-}).

However, this is an early stage... if you wish to assist, please sign up!


-- 
--------simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk
	(cond ((think you (oddp (my 'car)))
	       (should (see you (my 'cdr)))))
