Re: Compile to binary using gcl?
- From: "Rob Thorpe" <rthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Dec 2006 05:25:46 -0800
SBCL is written mostly in lisp with some C support bits to get it started,
so to compile it from source you need to have a cl compiler already, as
well as the usual C compiler. Install a cl compiler binary (the SBCL
binary or similar) in a temporary location, use it to compile the source,
then delete the temporary version. See http://www.sbcl.org/getting.html
Actually I just got the 1.0 version of SBCL and it does compile while
the older ones don't (on Gentoo). I'm supposing that the Gentoo people
are including a binary sbcl in their tarball to make the initial
compile happen. Still no luck compiling cmucl (I have AMD64 machines
and there's some kind of assembler error during the compile) though the
binary distro works fine. I'm now using it with Slime in fact, which
is totally wonderful by the way. Love the command completion
You don't really need to build it yourself. The improvement in
optimization is quite small between the stock binary and one built for
your machine. Also, SBCL and CMUCL are very similar for most purposes.
- Prev by Date: Re: lambda-returning defmacro, capture
- Next by Date: Re: Common Lisp from a Unix perspective - barriers to using CL
- Previous by thread: Re: Compile to binary using gcl?
- Next by thread: Re: Compile to binary using gcl?