64-bit AMD Lisp - BSD

This is a discussion on 64-bit AMD Lisp - BSD ; AFICT there is no lisp (excepting emacs) on 64-bit AMD 4.1. That seems to make Maxima also unusable on 64-bit AMD OpenBSD. Is this situation going to persist in 4.2? Thanks. --...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: 64-bit AMD Lisp

  1. 64-bit AMD Lisp

    AFICT there is no lisp (excepting emacs) on 64-bit AMD 4.1. That seems to make
    Maxima also unusable on 64-bit AMD OpenBSD. Is this situation going to persist
    in 4.2?

    Thanks.
    --

  2. Re: 64-bit AMD Lisp

    On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:33:30 -0500, dave wrote:

    > AFICT there is no lisp (excepting emacs) on 64-bit AMD 4.1. That seems to make
    > Maxima also unusable on 64-bit AMD OpenBSD. Is this situation going to persist
    > in 4.2?


    CLISP and SBCL run on FreeBSD-amd64 (-STABLE, anyway, haven't tried
    -CURRENT). CLISP is an interpreter, mostly written in C: how different
    can an OpenBSD port be from the FreeBSD one?

    --
    Andrew


  3. Re: 64-bit AMD Lisp

    Andrew Reilly wrote:
    > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:33:30 -0500, dave wrote:
    >
    >> AFICT there is no lisp (excepting emacs) on 64-bit AMD 4.1. That seems to make
    >> Maxima also unusable on 64-bit AMD OpenBSD. Is this situation going to persist
    >> in 4.2?

    >
    > CLISP and SBCL run on FreeBSD-amd64 (-STABLE, anyway, haven't tried
    > -CURRENT). CLISP is an interpreter, mostly written in C: how different
    > can an OpenBSD port be from the FreeBSD one?


    One problem is that cmu lisp and scl can only be built on systems on which
    they already run. Sbcl is a commercial product which is not currently ported
    to OpenBSD. Also, I have the impression that sbcl source is proprietary.

    Gcl errors out during build with a gcc error which I simply don't understand.
    I have sent email to the gcl bug system. Gcl looks to me like the best bet.
    Otherwise I may be forced to do my tensor calculations on an HP 50g.

    --

  4. Re: 64-bit AMD Lisp

    Andrew Reilly wrote:
    > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:33:30 -0500, dave wrote:
    >
    >> AFICT there is no lisp (excepting emacs) on 64-bit AMD 4.1. That seems to make
    >> Maxima also unusable on 64-bit AMD OpenBSD. Is this situation going to persist
    >> in 4.2?

    >
    > CLISP and SBCL run on FreeBSD-amd64 (-STABLE, anyway, haven't tried
    > -CURRENT). CLISP is an interpreter, mostly written in C: how different
    > can an OpenBSD port be from the FreeBSD one?
    >


    I just found a graphical front-end for Maxima that looks interesting:
    http://symaxx.sourceforge.net/.
    --

  5. Re: 64-bit AMD Lisp

    dave wrote:
    > Andrew Reilly wrote:
    >> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:33:30 -0500, dave wrote:
    >>
    >>> AFICT there is no lisp (excepting emacs) on 64-bit AMD 4.1. That seems to make
    >>> Maxima also unusable on 64-bit AMD OpenBSD. Is this situation going to persist
    >>> in 4.2?

    >>
    >> CLISP and SBCL run on FreeBSD-amd64 (-STABLE, anyway, haven't tried
    >> -CURRENT). CLISP is an interpreter, mostly written in C: how different
    >> can an OpenBSD port be from the FreeBSD one?
    >>

    >
    > I just found a graphical front-end for Maxima that looks interesting:
    > http://symaxx.sourceforge.net/.


    Actually, imaxima looks even *more* interesting!
    --

  6. Re: 64-bit AMD Lisp

    On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:36:03 -0500, dave wrote:

    > Andrew Reilly wrote:
    >> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:33:30 -0500, dave wrote:
    >>
    >>> AFICT there is no lisp (excepting emacs) on 64-bit AMD 4.1. That seems to make
    >>> Maxima also unusable on 64-bit AMD OpenBSD. Is this situation going to persist
    >>> in 4.2?

    >>
    >> CLISP and SBCL run on FreeBSD-amd64 (-STABLE, anyway, haven't tried
    >> -CURRENT). CLISP is an interpreter, mostly written in C: how different
    >> can an OpenBSD port be from the FreeBSD one?

    >
    > One problem is that cmu lisp and scl can only be built on systems on which
    > they already run. Sbcl is a commercial product which is not currently ported
    > to OpenBSD. Also, I have the impression that sbcl source is proprietary.
    >
    > Gcl errors out during build with a gcc error which I simply don't understand.
    > I have sent email to the gcl bug system. Gcl looks to me like the best bet.
    > Otherwise I may be forced to do my tensor calculations on an HP 50g.


    SBCL is open source, and can be built from source, but only if you have
    another Common Lisp compiler already running: most of it's code is in
    lisp (see the bottom of http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/getting.html).

    CLISP is and interpreter, and is written in C, although that doesn't
    necessarily guarantee workingness. I see from the openbsd CLISP makefile
    logs that it was unhappy about randomised mmap, but that has been
    worked-around by using gnu malloc. Similar sorts of issues probably apply
    to SBCL.

    Still, if Maxima is the goal, CLISP should do the job. I've run Maxima on
    CLISP on a number of occasions (although not on openbsd).

    --
    Andrew


+ Reply to Thread