*BSD News Article 33735


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.apps
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!festival!edcogsci!richard
From: richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)
Subject: Re: Anybody made akcl-1-625?
Message-ID: <CtwosL.3Ar@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh
References: <AH6QBAUW@math.fu-berlin.de> <CttvvB.C3x@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <GD7QBDG@math.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 11:48:21 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <GD7QBDG@math.fu-berlin.de> gusw@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Gunther Shadow) writes:
>Thank's for the hint, but I think 1-615 is a bit outdated.

True, but it should tell you what you need to know for unexec.

>  The real problem is, that I don't want to link with -static, but
>I want to get a dynamic -- and thus a more efficient -- akcl.

I don't see the point.  It isn't going to be much smaller (a few tens
of K perhaps) and certainly no faster.  Dynamic executables aren't
more "efficient" except in terms of size (they're slower), and unless
you're linking with some huge library (eg X) the size difference will
be negligible for a system as big as KCL.

I believe the FSF have taken over AKCL as Gnu Common Lisp, so they
might use the code from Emacs, but really I think you're wasting your
time.

-- Richard
-- 
Richard Tobin, HCRC, Edinburgh University                 R.Tobin@ed.ac.uk

Ooooh!  I didn't know we had a king.  I thought we were an
autonomous collective.