[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Axiom-developer] Value stack overflow bug

From: Bill Page
Subject: RE: [Axiom-developer] Value stack overflow bug
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:44:53 -0400


On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 9:45 PM you wrote to Camm

> ... 
> Unfortunately I've not yet solved the compile problem. 
> Essentially the issue is as follows: It was always the case 
> that you needed a running Axiom system to build a runnable 
> Axiom system. I've been reworking the system to fix this (as 
> most people don't have a running Axiom). In order for this to 
> work you need to be able to bootstrap the Axiom compile 
> process. So far, though I've flattened a dozen issues, this 
> still remains unsolved.

It seems to me that it is conceivable that one might always
need a running Axiom system in order to (conveniently) build
a runnable Axiom system. This is essentially the case with any
compiler that compiles itself. Most higher level languages are
in this sort of situation today, e.g. the GNU C compiler (gcc)
is written in gcc, right? Of course there might be the possibily
of "cross-compilation", i.e. using Axiom on one platform to
build Axiom on some other platform. And if you were really
ambitious and had a lot of time, one might be able to re-implement
the whole thing in some other language, e.g. the way the "Aldor
part" of Axiom was re-written in C.

A thought: Would using Aldor help to make a runnable Axiom

> This week I'm taking a different, temporary path. I'm 
> building a working Axiom that can be freely distributed and 
> is derived from the source code. However, it can't be built 
> from the source code (yet). I hope to have it available this 
> weekend. I'm doing this for 3 reasons. First, it will make 
> Axiom available again. Second, it will allow users to 
> generate bug reports (hopefully one of the bugs will give us 
> the clue to the compiler problem). Third, some potential 
> bright-spot of a developer might be able to help with the 
> compiler bug.

What would be the problem if you were to take this approach
as the primary path instead of just a temporary one?

Bill Page.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]