From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 8 12:05:33 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8CCE16A401 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2006 12:05:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1686643D64 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2006 12:05:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (mjktux@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k38C5Cox097206 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2006 14:05:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k38C5CWp097205; Sat, 8 Apr 2006 14:05:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 14:05:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200604081205.k38C5CWp097205@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20060408104342.GA720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-amd64 User-Agent: tin/1.8.0-20051224 ("Ronay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:05:17 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Subject: Re: extreme mem usage under amd64 arch ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 12:05:33 -0000 Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Sat, 2006-Apr-08 12:21:46 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > I suspect a python kernel would be painfully slow....... > > > > Certainly. I wasn't implying that Python would be well- > > suited to write an OS kernel in. Unless someone builds > > a processor that executes Python bytecode natively. > > Squeak (a smalltalk dialect) has its kernel written in a subset of > squeak which can be either interpreted or compiled into assembler. > The former maintains the development/testing advantages of an > interpreter and the latter makes it run at a decent speed. You may be > able to do the same with Python. In fact, that's already possible. This is one of the advantages of the Python grammar being relatively simple and well-designed: It's easy to write independent implementations of it. Besides the standard Python implementation (which comes with an interactive interpreter and a bytecode generator) there are several other implementations of the Python language, including compilers such as "Pyrex" that create C code which can be compiled into native binaries (and is easy to interface with other C programs). > Alternatively, JIT techniques have > received an enormous amount of effort over the past decade (thanks to > Java) and a JIT Python may be reasonable. In fact, that's already possible. :-) For example, using "Psyco" (a JIT compiler for Python): http://psyco.sourceforge.net/introduction.html or "Jython" (a Python implementation in Java that creates Java bytecode): http://www.jython.org/docs/whatis.html > > Oliver (right now busy writing a boot manager in assembler) > > Not Python?? :-) Well, that would have been an option if there were no space concerns. That or O'Caml. :-) However, it must be able to run from an ISO9660 sector, using ElTorito "no emulation mode", so it must fit in 2048 bytes. The Python runtime library is a little bit larger than that. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "That's what I love about GUIs: They make simple tasks easier, and complex tasks impossible." -- John William Chambless