;; the executable I'm running.
:sb-doc
- ;; Do regression and other tests when building the system. You
- ;; might or might not want this if you're not a developer,
- ;; depending on how paranoid you are. You probably do want it if
- ;; you are a developer.
+ ;; Do regression and other tests when building the system. You might
+ ;; or might not want this if you're not a developer, depending on how
+ ;; paranoid you are. You probably do want it if you are a developer.
+ ;; This test does not affect the target system (in much the same way
+ ;; as :sb-after-xc-core, below).
:sb-test
;; Make more debugging information available (for debugging SBCL
;; any Intel 386 or better, or compatibles like the AMD K6 or K7
;; :alpha
;; DEC/Compaq Alpha CPU
- ;; (No other CPUs are supported by SBCL as of 0.6.12.15, but SPARC or
- ;; PowerPC support could be ported from CMU CL if anyone is
- ;; sufficiently motivated to do so, or if you're *really* motivated,
- ;; you could write a port from scratch for a new CPU architecture.)
+ ;; :sparc
+ ;; any Sun UltraSPARC (possibly also non-Ultras -- currently untested)
+ ;; :ppc
+ ;; any PowerPC CPU
+ ;;
+ ;; (No other CPUs are supported by SBCL as of 0.7.5, but MIPS or HPPA
+ ;; support could be ported from CMU CL if anyone is sufficiently
+ ;; motivated to do so, or if you're *really* motivated, you could
+ ;; write a port from scratch for a new CPU architecture.)
+ ;;
;; (CMU CL also had a :pentium feature, which affected the definition
- ;; of some floating point vops. It was present but not enabled or
- ;; documented in the CMU CL code that SBCL is derived from, and is
- ;; present but stale in SBCL as of 0.6.12.)
+ ;; of some floating point vops. It was present but not enabled or
+ ;; documented in the CMU CL code that SBCL is derived from, and has
+ ;; now been moved to the backend-subfeatures mechanism.)
;;
;; properties derived from the machine architecture
- ;; :stack-grows-downward, :stack-grows-downward
- ;; One of these two should be present in the features list of any
- ;; CPU supported as of sbcl-0.7.1.29. On the X86, the system stack
- ;; grows downward. On the other supported CPU architectures, the
+ ;; :control-stack-grows-downward-not-upward
+ ;; On the X86, the Lisp control stack grows downward. On the
+ ;; other supported CPU architectures as of sbcl-0.7.1.40, the
;; system stack grows upward.
+ ;; Note that there are other stack-related differences between the
+ ;; X86 port and the other ports. E.g. on the X86, the Lisp control
+ ;; stack coincides with the C stack, meaning that on the X86 there's
+ ;; stuff on the control stack that the Lisp-level debugger doesn't
+ ;; understand very well. As of sbcl-0.7.1.40 things like that are
+ ;; just parameterized by #!+X86, but it'd probably be better to
+ ;; use new flags like :CONTROL-STACK-CONTAINS-C-STACK.
;;
;; operating system features:
;; :linux = We're intended to run under some version of Linux.
;; is not exclusive with the features which indicate which
;; particular version of BSD we're intended to run under.)
;; :freebsd = We're intended to run under FreeBSD.
- ;; :openbsd = We're intended to run under FreeBSD.
- ;; (No others are supported by SBCL as of 0.6.7, but :hpux or
- ;; :solaris support could be ported from CMU CL if anyone is
+ ;; :openbsd = We're intended to run under OpenBSD.
+ ;; :sunos = We're intended to run under Solaris user environment
+ ;; with the SunOS kernel.
+ ;; :osf1 = We're intended to run under Tru64 (aka Digital Unix
+ ;; aka OSF/1).
+ ;; (No others are supported by SBCL as of 0.7.5, but :hpux or
+ ;; :irix support could be ported from CMU CL if anyone is
;; sufficiently motivated to do so, and it'd even be possible,
;; though harder, to port the system to Microsoft Windows.)
)