This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Question about clisp version naming
- From: Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:40:00 -0500
- Subject: Re: Question about clisp version naming
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5500B536 dot 4050108 at cornell dot edu> <87bnju6wox dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <5505C36F dot 5030802 at cornell dot edu> <1426443595 dot 8104 dot 9 dot camel at cygwin dot com> <5505D57C dot 3040005 at cornell dot edu> <87twxm5azp dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <55060BF6 dot 80801 at cornell dot edu> <87k2ygbw7v dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <87fv94bveq dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <87bnjsbuhm dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <55073E93 dot 2030902 at cornell dot edu> <87vbhzph1g dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <5508998A dot 6040903 at cornell dot edu>
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 17:15 -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 3/17/2015 3:20 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> > Ken Brown writes:
> >> Great. Thanks for testing. There's probably no reason for me to
> >> upload a new clisp package right now (unless it would help you). But
> >> I'll give you a heads up when I'm ready to do that.
> >
> > I've now drilled to the bottom of what I had assumed were build/package
> > problemsâ it turns out that if you rebase the lisp.dll, then the dumped
> > executable that depends on it stops working.
>
> I'll study the clisp code that creates dumped executables and see if I
> can figure out what's going on.
>
> > rebase has altered lisp.dll even
> > though it says it didn't.
>
> This sounds like a bug in rebase, but it probably isn't related to the
> present problem.
Do I understand correctly that lisp.exe (AKA lisp.run on *NIX platforms)
is the only binary loading these modules, and that these modules depend
on the symbols in lisp.exe (if there were no lisp.dll)? How does the
lisp.exe in clisp relate to the one that would be in maxima-exec-clisp?
--
Yaakov