Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 12:21:47 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, rnordier@nordier.com Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Replacing gcc as the system compiler (was Re: Fix for undefined "__error" and discussion of shared object versioning) Message-ID: <19980528122147.44793@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199805280348.NAA09679@godzilla.zeta.org.au>; from Bruce Evans on Thu, May 28, 1998 at 01:48:06PM %2B1000 References: <199805280348.NAA09679@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 01:48:06PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > >Have you looked closely at XANDF? I'm seeing two real hurdles (beyond > >inertia) in using this as our main compiler: The use of asm() for some > >macros in the kernel, and the use of linker sets. What do you think > >our chance of working around these are? > > Linker sets are just asm(). Too bad - I'd like another excuse to kill > them. asm() is not sue much in macros, but is used a lot in inline > functions. I see inline functions as the main hurdle. Chances of > replacing them at reasonable cost are low. inline functions should not be a problem. There is a keyword for defining inline functions in standard C: "static". 'inline' is semantically null. I think it will be possible to handle __asm(), but I haven't really attempted to implement my ideas yet. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980528122147.44793>