lone VS linux

I made something somewhat close to that: a freestanding lisp. It targets the Linux kernel directly. No libc.

https://github.com/lone-lang/lone

> register scanning isn't portable

Certainly not but it wasn't particularly hard to implement either. I just wrote some inline assembly for every architecture. Here's my programming language's x86_64 and aarch64 implementations:

https://github.com/lone-lang/lone/blob/master/architecture/x...

https://github.com/lone-lang/lone/blob/master/architecture/a...

Not too long ago, a project of mine was shared here on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38126052

In that thread I wrote:

> I have this vision in my mind: embedding lone modules into sections of the lone ELF and shipping it out. Zero dependencies, self-contained.

I've been working on that since that day. Proud to say I've gotten it to work and thought I'd make it the subject of my first Show HN. Some free software projects gained features along the way too.

The link is to an article with a proper demonstration, technical details and what happened in the past few weeks.

The complete repository itself can be found here:

https://github.com/lone-lang/lone

I've completely reorganized it since the last thread. Would be very happy if you guys tried it out.

To test my programming language. It's a freestanding lisp interpreter that doesn't link to libc. I wrote the code that handles the environment variables and in order to test it I needed full control over the program's inputs including its environment. The env utility provides this control by emptying the environment and setting only the variables I specify, solving 90% of the problem. Only thing I still can't control is argv[0]. With this new feature upstreamed, my test suite will be complete.

Here's the code if you'd like to take a look:

https://github.com/lone-lang/lone#testing

https://github.com/lone-lang/lone/blob/master/scripts/test.b...

> only to be confronted with the notorious 'incompatible glibc version error'. It's super annoying.

I started making my own freestanding Linux Lisp because of this exact issue. It's nowhere near as performant as something like SBCL but it's small and once compiled has no dependencies and will literally run on any Linux.

https://github.com/lone-lang/lone

I'm taking a break from this project but I plan to add a feature where I can put a Lisp script into the ELF itself so I can just copy it with the scripts included.

The kernel just puts the data contiguously on the stack. Obtaining pointers to them can seem somewhat magical if you're writing a nolibc program but I wouldn't call it horrible.

I implemented it for my programming language with some rather simple assembly code:

https://github.com/lone-lang/lone/blob/master/arch/x86_64.c#...

https://github.com/lone-lang/lone/blob/master/arch/aarch64.c...

FFS predates FreeBSD and is in some capacity supported by all 3 major BSDs. I'm fairly confident that Linux actually supports it through the ufs driver ( https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/ufs ); whether the use of different names in different places makes it better or worse is an exercise for the reader.

These are a bit easier to see what's going on:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e...

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e61...

Unfortunately Github doesn't have a way to render symbols for whitespace, but you can tell by selecting the spaces that the previous version had leading tabs. Linus changed it so that the tokens `default` and the number e.g. `12` are also separated by a tab. This is tricky, because the token "default" is seven characters, it will always give this added tab a width of 1 char which makes it always layout the same as if it were a space no matter if you use tab widths of 1, 2, 4, or 8.

There was also a Gentoo effort to run atop FreeBSD[0]. The challenge of course is that afaik none of the BSD kernel ABIs are considered stable. The stable interface is the BSD libc. That said, with binfmt_misc, I don't see a reason you couldn't just run (at least some) FreeBSD binaries on Linux with a thin syscall translation layer (rather something like qemu-system) and then your layer hooked via binfmt_misc. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this for FreeBSD, but prior efforts existed as alternate binfmts for SysVr4/5 ELF binaries[2]. Either way would take some elbow grease, but you *might* even be able just reuse binfmt_elf and just have a new interpreter for FreeBSD elf.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/binfmt-misc.html

[2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/binfmt_elf....

> The original less-than check was deemed incorrect

It was only deemed incorrect because of an information leak. Not because it's a valid use-case for user space to copy smaller portions of *hwrpb into user space. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/21c5977a836e399fc71...

Correct. And the combined work needs to carry the MIT license text and copyright attributions for the MIT software authors. With binary distribution it must also be overt, not hidden in some source code drop, but directly accompanying the binary.

Many people who talk about relicensing never credit the MIT developers or distribute the MIT license text. "Because it's GPL now."

I don't think that you believe that, but many developers do.

Some don't see the need for source code scans for Open Source compliance, because the license.txt says GPL, so it's GPL. Prime example is the Linux kernel. There is code under different licenses in there, but people don't even read https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING till the end ("In addition, other licenses may also apply.") and conclude it's simply GPL 2 and nothing else.

Also be aware that sublicensing is not the same as relicensing.

> Does he have something against it?

He notoriously hates GNU Emacs, yes.

https://marc.info/?m=122955159617722

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...