Any reason why they prefer to rewrite large portions of code to use gcc rather than making use of different toolchains for the L4 kernel and the plan9 subsystems? It seems like the latter would be a lot less effort and result in a system that was easier to track the original sources going forward.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:14 PM, YAMANASHI Takeshi <9.na...@gmail.com>wrote: > As I heard, the largest work in porting Plan 9 to L4 enviroment > is rewriting Plan 9's C code base to be compiled on gcc > as L4 uses the compiler for its development. > > The developers of LP49 themselves could chime in, but here is the link > to the project. > You might be surprised how much of Plan 9 has been rewritten in LP49. > > http://research.nii.ac.jp/H2O/LP49/LP49-e.html > -- > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:48 PM, David Leimbach <leim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Recently found a paper (again) documenting some work going on here. > > I've lately sort of had a resurrected interest in OKL4, and I'm always > > interested in Plan 9 stuff, so I was wondering what's happened here or if > > there's any code to show for it. > > It seems like an effort that would take more than one person, but I'm > > spending some of my spare time investigating L4 a little more in depth > than > > I had previously, and trying to understand what it would take to port > Plan 9 > > to this platform. > > I'm not announcing this as a project at this point, as I don't know what > the > > heck kind of time I'm going to have. > > Dave > > > > -- > YAMANASHI Takeshi > > -- Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com
