[Openmcl-devel] create an executable from openmcl

[Taoufik Dachraoui]

Hi,

I would like to create a standalone executable program. I do not want 
to use openmcl to run the program!!

Let's say I write a lisp program, then I would like to create a 
standalone running program without using openmcl.

Is there a way to do this? (like when we write a C program than we 
compile it and link it to create an executable)

besides that adder.image runs only through openmcl, 'save-application 
created a large image. I would like an image that contains only what is 
used by my program (add, read, format) and not the whole lisp.

Kind regards
Taoufik

On jeudi, avr 17, 2003, at 16:27 Africa/Tunis, Gary Byers wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Taoufik Dachraoui wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can I create an executable program file from openmcl?
>>
>> example:
>>
>> (defun add3 (x) (+ x 3))
>> (loop do (format t "~A~%" (add3 (read)))) ;;  entry point
>>
>> I would like to create an executable program (smallest) with the
>> expression above as the entry point of the program.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Taoufik
>>
>
> --------- begin actual unretouched screen capture --------
> [src/ccl] gb at miles> openmcl
> Welcome to OpenMCL Version (Alpha: Linux) 0.14-030415!
> ? (defun add3 (x) (+ x 3))
> ADD3
> ? (save-application "adder.image"
>                     :toplevel-function
>                     #'(lambda () (loop do (format t "~A~%" (add3 
> (read)))))
> )
> NIL
> ? [src/ccl] gb at miles> openmcl adder.image
> 4
> 7
> 5
> 8
> --------- end actual unretouched screen capture --------
>
> It'd be tempting to say that it's that easy, but that wouldn't be
> entirely accurate: we've left out some interesting details (what
> happens if there's a runtime error ? how should ^C be handled ? how do
> we get out of this loop gracefully ?)  SAVE-APPLICATION can pretty
> clearly handle the demands of ADD3, but as things start to get a
> little more complicated (what if we wanted to write "ADD-N", where N
> was passed via a command-line option ?)  I'm not confident that things
> are modularized well.
>
> This happened to have been in 0.14; 0.13 would probably behave exactly
> the same way on the example, but there are likely different ways in
> which things aren't modularized well.
>
> As far as making a "minimal" adder.image ... it's strange to hear
> myself say this, but I think that the modularity and infrastructure
> and other issues (packaging, distribution) are way more important.
> There are certainly arguments that suggest that a 5MB ADD3 program is
> somewhat excessive, but if it's a -really good- ADD3 program most
> people wouldn't care that it happens to have a (mostly unused) CL
> implementation in it.  Would they ?
>
>


_______________________________________________
Openmcl-devel mailing list
Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
http://clozure.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmcl-devel