Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:32:28 -0500 From: David Cuthbert <dacut@kanga.org> To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GCC as a selling point for FreeBSD? (Not!) Message-ID: <3E2B89EC.4000107@kanga.org> In-Reply-To: <200301201620.37863.jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030119130825.00b21ee0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030119133833.00e422f0@localhost> <200301201620.37863.jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E2B89EC.4000107>