Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #64621, comment 24


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jul 15, 2022, 9:16:16 AM (22 months ago)
Author:
kakuhen
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #64621, comment 24

    initial v1  
    11I am here to report that **builds work as intended on Darwin/arm64**, meaning this is likely an issue with the Lisp implementation used to bootstrap SBCL on Darwin/x86_64 (version 1.2.11). I have posted in #sbcl on LiberaChat asking the developers for updated bootstrap binaries. I do not expect this request to be fulfilled. In the mean time, tomio-arisaka's suggestion is the best way forward.
    22
    3 SBCL can be bootstrapped just fine with other Common Lisp implementations, such as CCL, ECL, and even CLISP (provided you use recent versions, which MacPorts indeed offers). In my experience, most people bootstrap SBCL with ECL, as ECL only requires a C99-compliant compiler. In absence of an updated bootstrap binary from upstream, we can fall back on CCL (or ECL) as a solution for i386 and x86_64. CCL is probably the way to go since we can pull in a binary blob rather than perform a full compilation of ECL just to begin bootstrapping SBCL.
     3SBCL can be bootstrapped just fine with other Common Lisp implementations, such as CCL, ECL, and even CLISP (provided you use recent versions, which MacPorts indeed offers). In my experience, most people bootstrap SBCL with ECL (if they decide to not use an older SBCL), as ECL only requires a C99-compliant compiler. In absence of an updated bootstrap binary from upstream, we can fall back on CCL (or ECL) as a solution for i386 and x86_64. CCL is probably the way to go since we can pull in a binary blob rather than perform a full compilation of ECL just to begin bootstrapping SBCL.