David Lichteblau  <dave-cll@lichteblau.com> wrote:
+---------------
| llothar <llothar@web.de> wrote:
| > When i have the todo list right in mind the largest problem is that
| > under Win32 you can't allocate a fixed address range and so loaded
| > compiled code must be able relocateable. The current implementation of
| > the SBCL compiler is not.
| 
| It is true that Alastair Bridgewater listed that as a potential problem.
| 
| Although I do not know the technical reasons for his comment, let me
| note that so far nobody has turned up who actually had problems with
| SBCL on Windows because of this, so it does not seem to be a big problem
| at this point.
+---------------

Actually, it depends on exactly what *other* Windows programs
you have loaded on your system and in what order they start!!
Carl Shapiro ran into this problem with his CMUCL port: there was
some [name escapes me] Windows add-on that, when started at boot
time due to a registry entry, grabbed a hunk of absolute addresses
right in the *middle* of the address space, thus preventing CMUCL
from ever loading. [Part of CMUCL's "lisp.core" image has to load
at an absolute virtual address.]

He had some hacky solution [starting a CMUCL before the other tool?]
which I don't remember off-hand, but in any case it *has* been a
"big problem" at least for one person.


-Rob

p.s. Yes, that was CMUCL and not SBCL, but I dare say the problem
would likely be the same with the latter.

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607