From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Jan 19 21:32: 3 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057F137B401 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 21:32:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from pop017.verizon.net (pop017pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.210]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E6C43F1E for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 21:31:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dacut@kanga.org) Received: from kanga.org ([151.201.19.185]) by pop017.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with ESMTP id <20030120053155.QASD10203.pop017.verizon.net@kanga.org> for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:31:55 -0600 Message-ID: <3E2B89EC.4000107@kanga.org> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:32:28 -0500 From: David Cuthbert Organization: Kanga International User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en-au, en-nz, en-us, en- MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GCC as a selling point for FreeBSD? (Not!) References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030119130825.00b21ee0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030119133833.00e422f0@localhost> <200301201620.37863.jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <200301201620.37863.jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at pop017.verizon.net from [151.201.19.185] at Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:31:54 -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org JacobRhoden wrote: > Just a thought, but considering that TenDRA compiles to an intermediatory > 'platform independant' stage (ie like java) would it be wise to write an > operating system in this language? for a start, i could imagine that it would > always take longer to compile. and I guess (has someone already said this) > that you could not use in-line asm in such a language (or am i wrong?). Well, I wouldn't want to run an OS using the intermediate language (IL), but there's no reason a translator from IL->cpu instructions can't be written. Personally, I consider that an easier problem (read: I've done it before myself, and actually had fun writing the translator) than writing a C (or, worse, C++) front-end. Inline assembly syntax -- that is, C code containing bits of assembly instructions -- isn't portable, anyway. The GNU solution is certainly unique, though not very usable to those of us who teethed on Borland compilers. I prefer separating the C and assembly completely, and bringing them together at link time. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message