[cmucl-imp] ASDF 2.016 released

[Faré]

> Don't know if I'd make that the default, but I wouldn't have any problem
> with creating snapshots that included a single executable.
That would be great.

> Well, that's
> not quite right.  The executable would include the image, but the
> unicode info is still stored out in a separate file.  Would that be ok?
> Might be possible to build an executable with that included too, but
> I'll have to test that.
Not so great without it, unless the file is available at standard
locations in all Linux distributions as in /usr/share/misc/unicode.gz

> What do you mean to statically compile in libraries since there are
> usually no static libraries anymore, just shared ones? If you dump an
> image that includes other shared libraries, cmucl is supposed to reload
> those libraries automatically when the image is started again.  That
> used to work, but I haven't tested that in ages.  Would that be ok?  Or
> do you really mean statically linked?
>
I really mean statically linked.
Currently, CFFI and friends produce plenty of .so files for wrappers.
I don't want to chase a zillion Lisp-specific .so files;
that totally defeats the "delivery into one executable file" strategy.
Also, some less-known or fast-changing C libraries might be good
candidate for inclusion as static libraries rather than dynamic libraries.

> This is kind of how cmucl creates its executable images.
Oh, I didn't realize you already had this feature. Sweet.
Did you also fix that age-old bug whereby cmucl parsed -eval arguments
passed the end of the lisp image arguments?

> The main thing
> are that the address of two magic trampoline functions and the addresses
> of the various spaces are specified to the linker when creating the
> executable image.   Not exactly sure how to extend that right now, but I
> suppose it's possible.
>
Can you tell me which things they are and point me to the linker magic?
I think I could port the trick to SBCL...

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Not only is there no contradiction between egoism and altruism, but no
altruism is possible without egoism - for what betterment to wish to an other
person devoid of selfish desire, to whom any change is indifferent?