Re: [Chicken-users] README.darcs bootstrap claim probably false

[felix winkelmann]

On 6/7/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
> README.darcs says at the very beginning:
>
> 0. You will need:
>
>     * A system Chicken has been ported to. See the homepage for details.
>       To bootstrap the system Chicken 2.315 or newer is needed.
>
> I bet this is false.  I'm building on CMake using a two-stage bootstrap,
> and plain Chicken 2.3 works just fine.  Now granted, I don't test the
> canonical Darcs bootstrap, only my own CMake bootstrap.  Maybe my build
> can do something that yours can't, ha ha ha ha ha!  My secret sauce is I
> don't bother with .exports when generating my bootstrap compiler.  Only
> the final compiler needs .exports.  Granted further, I haven't done much
> testing of the results, so maybe they'll keel over and die.  But
> anyways, my suspicion is that requiring 2.315 is excessively conservative.

It is rather conservative, but your cmake-based build is 2-stage and such
somewhat more forgiving regarding the (1st stage) bootstrapping compiler
version.

> If only 2.3 is required, I'd like to see that statement made in
> README.darcs.  I'm redrafting my INSTALL-CMake.txt docs and if we can
> say the same thing, we should say the same thing.  Originally I also
> thought I was going to refer to the README.darcs instructions, but now I
> realize it's got lotsa stuff that CMake doesn't care about.  So I'll
> write up my own instructions on how to obtain Darcs and so forth.

Again, for a 1-stage bootstrap, 2.315 will generate a better chicken, so for
the autotools-based build, 2.315 is recommended. But since the cmake-based
build is somewhat more sophisticated, I guess you're right.


(felix)