Noah Lavine <
noah.b.lavine@...> writes:
>> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM, David Kastrup <
dak@...> wrote:
>>> Noah Lavine <
noah.b.lavine@...> writes:
>>>
>>>> It appears to me (anecdotally) that most of the build time is spent
>>>> compiling Scheme code, rather than C code.
>>>>
>>>> One idea I had been toying with is whether Guile could compile faster
>>>> if it had another copy of Guile already around, so it could skip the
>>>> portion of compile-time where the interpreter is running the compiler.
>>>
>>> Bootstrap hell. If the "copy of Guile already around" happens to
>>> produce different code, you have lots of fun ahead.
>
>
> Oh, I was unclear. I meant that the existing copy of Guile would run
> the compiler from the new copy of Guile.
That assumes that it runs it producing a correct result.
> In the worst case you'd have to bootstrap, but that's what we do now,
> every time.
If the "copy of Guile already around" is malicious, bootstrapping from
the produced compilation can't get rid of the malice. See Ken
Thompson's malicious compiler experiment.
--
David Kastrup
