Re: Unexec'ing Scwm [was Re: Proposal for a Guile binary file format]

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

thi <ttn@mingle.glug.org> writes:

> Greg J. Badros writes:
> 
>  > There is another approach that Scwm may be able to take: dumping via
>  > guile-hobbit's unexec capability.  I've got a dumped Scwm to run, but
>  > not of the state loaded before dumping is in the resulting
>  > executable.  I'm not sure how to go about figuring out what's wrong,
>  > but I imagine that there are folks on this list who have experience
>  > with Emacs's unexec and might be valuable in getting this feature to
>  > work all the way.  This would be a huge win because then only the
>  > .scwmrc file would need to be loaded as all the other modules could
>  > be included in the dumped Scwm.
> 
> guile-hobbit is quite useful.  i would suggest not dealing w/ undumping,
> since such hair is often to the detriment of one's own.  instead, take
> foo.scm and separate its guile-specific interface from r4rs code and use
> guile-hobbit to build a shared library.  guile-hobbit uses libtool,
> which eases most of the portability issues wrt shared libraries.

I'm not sure what you mean: "separate its guile-specific interface from
r4rs code"?

> the distribution includes an example of this (utils.scm, iirc).  the
> only issue left is where to install libraries.  for THUD, i chose
> PREFIX/lib/thud, but i don't know if this is general practice.   if APP
> is already installing under PREFIX/share/APP, i suppose PREFIX/lib/APP
> is not unreasonable.  however, in old guile docs, there is some talk of
> installing under guile/app (or something like that).  i think there is
> no de facto standard at this time.

That stuff is easy enough to tweak when people agree.  I'll have to look 
at what thud does as an example.  How much Scheme code do you compile
into shared libraries and how much faster is loading those than loading
the Scheme code directly?

Thanks,
Greg