SEO
vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
02-16-2008, 08:10 AM
| |||
| |||
 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      |
|
02-16-2008, 08:10 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: 64-bit AMD Lisp Andrew Reilly <andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org> 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. -- |
|
02-16-2008, 08:10 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: 64-bit AMD Lisp Andrew Reilly <andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org> 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/. -- |
|
02-16-2008, 08:10 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: 64-bit AMD Lisp dave <daf@amd.localhost.comcast.net> wrote: > Andrew Reilly <andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org> 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! -- |
|
02-16-2008, 08:10 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: 64-bit AMD Lisp On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:36:03 -0500, dave wrote: > Andrew Reilly <andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org> 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 |
Linear Mode
