> As for the perspective: JAT could support JAL, but will not behave > exactly the same on a detailled level and discussions on this list > learned that that would be unacceptable for some. This in combination > with the lack of potential users led me to the descision to suspend > development. > I also did some research on a C backend for the JAL V2 compiler and > learned this is feasable, but has two major disadvantages over JAT: it > would work for 8 and 16-bit systems only (so no proper ARM support) > and would require a jallib-alike effort for each target family.
Hey Joep, I was wondering what was happening with this. It's good to hear an update, although not good news. I think a decision needs to be made on this. Use JAT or C backend to JALV2. Otherwise this will not proceed any further. Obviously these decisions are not easy. I still like the "C backend" idea, although JAT is also a good project. If Kyle was to add support for a 32 bit processor, I am guessing that your first problem would be solved? If so, I would leave the decision up to Kyle (weather or not he wants to work on 32 bit processor support). Can you explain what you mean by "jallib-alike effort for each target family". Wouldn't you have to do this with JAT anyways? Matt. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
