GNU Common Lisp as a porting target

When looking around at Common Lisp stuff, usually I see CMUCL and SBCL support, and rarely do I see GCL support. Maybe this is owing to what I've looked for, but it does seem like a pattern. So, if something works on CMUCL or SBCL, how difficult is it to get working on GCL? What kinds of apps are very difficult to move over? What kinds are easy? Is there some general reason why GCL doesn't seem to be as popular as CMUCL or SBCL?

Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

On Usenet, if you're not an open source hippie who
likes to download and play with programming toys
all day long, there's something wrong with you.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lisp w/out GC
    ... > While we are at it, do the usual Lisp implementations (gcl, SBCL, CMUCL, ... I don't know about clisp or GCL. ...
  • Re: Python and Lisp Test
    ... only the Python compiler (common to CMUCL and SBCL) does type ... Not the GCL one. ...
  • native cmucl build for redhat
    ... redhat project, and have successfully built packages for gcl, clisp, sbcl, ... and am currently working on cmucl. ...
  • Re: Quality and ANSI compatibility of GCL?
    ... > I've been looking at GCL, ... > they aimed for ansi compatibility. ... Neither sbcl nor cmucl can yet claim this, ...
  • Re: CLISP vs. CMUCL vs. SBCL
    ... > CMUCL: Good, fast compiler. ... What are the best points of CLISP other than portability? ... Between CMUCL and SBCL, how would one choose between these? ... > support CMUCL also seem to support SBCL, ...