[Openmcl-devel] Apple to switch to Intel - what does this portend?
helink at sandia.gov
Tue Jun 7 12:39:08 PDT 2005
Iirc that's something I wrote based on conversations with GB. Not to
put too much in his mouth, but I think the assumption at the time was
that "porting to x86/P*" meant having a wintel or linux86 version
maintained concurrently, and there weren't pressing reasons to create
Now the issue may be that it's still a big pain and will require
Apple/PPC (jaguar+) and Apple/P* (tiger+) versions to be concurrently
maintained for a while, but compiler improvements to abstract the lisp
environment from its compiler back end are desirable anyway, and might
ease the way to Apple/P* and other targets.
I would be interested in seeing how Rosetta does with openmcl out of
the box... I wonder if GCs would bollox whatever caching it does.
On Jun 6, 2005, at 3:12 PM, David Steuber wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2005, at 4:49 PM, David Steuber wrote:
>> Anyway, I'm sorry for spreading any misinformation.
> Just as a sort of excuse, here is a direct quote from a knowledgeable
> person that gave me my impression that OpenMCL would not go to x86:
> "Oh, and another good bootstrapping question is "What would be
> involved in porting openmcl to another platform?" Meaning another risc
> architecture with plenty of general-purpose registers, like to Sun or
> SGI boxen? (Porting to x86 or P* probably constitutes yet another
> question, and a less welcome one, because register allocation is so
> different. The answer to this one, I know: use some other lisp and
> write some libraries to ensure you can write to consistent lisp system
> It is possible I misread this.
> Openmcl-devel mailing list
> Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
More information about the Openmcl-devel