Re: [bootstrappable] Re: prototyping the full source bootstrap path

[Ludovic Courtès]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> skribis:

> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> So the next steps in the dependency graph are:
>>>
>>>   mes-boot -> mescc -> tinycc -> address@hidden -> gcc
>>>
>>> Do I get this right?
>
> That has been my idea for a long time, yes...but it may not be feasible,
> wise or most fun.  It may not be feasible because Mes Scheme is just
> tooo slow.  We could look into fixing that, or try to avoid it by
>
>> It’s not clear yet.  An alternative approach is to try to build Guile
>> first by using mes as the bootstrap Scheme interpreter.
>
> ...yeah bootstrapping into to Guile Scheme early!  Something like
>
>    mes-boot -> mescc -> mini-guile -> mescc+/guilecc -> address@hidden

It wouldn’t really help in that mescc+/guilecc is just as capable as the
earlier mescc, no?

> That's a very tempting idea that Ricardo came up with in Berlin and we
> even hacked quite a bit on this.  To be precise, we looked if Mes could
> run ice-9/eval.scm.
>
> One of the targets that had on my list for a long time is
> libguile/eval.c.  Now I'm starting to wonder, what would be the fastest
> path to a minimal Guile, and what would we need for that?  IIUC, Guile
> does not run without at least some bits of libguile, such as
> libguile/strings.c.  Thoughts?

Indeed, Guile needs a C compiler.

In general, we need a C compiler early on… unless we have replacements
for Bash, Coreutils, etc. written in Guile or Mes, which would allow us
to strip bits of the tip of the DAG.

Thanks,
Ludo’.