Re: Lisp Garbage Collection
- From: "llothar" <llothar@xxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Aug 2006 07:46:09 -0700
skibud2 wrote:
I was talking with a fellow engineer at work about why CMUCL and SBCL
have not been fully ported to Windows. He mentioned that it is
difficult to port most Lisp implementations because of difference
between the Linux and Windows memory models and how they are used for
garbage collection. Can someone shed some light on what these
differences are.
When i have the todo list right in mind the largest problem is that
under Win32 you can't allocate a fixed address range and so loaded
compiled code must be able relocateable. The current implementation of
the SBCL compiler is not.
Signal handling isn't a problem because Win32 has no signals. Using
signals is a bad unix coding style and should be covered with higher
level abstractions.
Exception handling was also one on the todo list marked as "insane".
But there are dozens of other things i exepct to have problems serious
enough to kall the windows port a joke. When i see all the problems
with unicode then it is far away from professional usage.
It's a pitty, there is still no good cost-free lisp for the worlds most
important plattform.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lisp Garbage Collection
- From: David Lichteblau
- Re: Lisp Garbage Collection
- References:
- Lisp Garbage Collection
- From: skibud2
- Lisp Garbage Collection
- Prev by Date: Re: Lets talk about GUI and sound libraries
- Next by Date: Re: Juggling with binary files?
- Previous by thread: Re: Lisp Garbage Collection
- Next by thread: Re: Lisp Garbage Collection
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|