eAt 04:57 PM 8/15/00 +0100, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >How much of the current base of target ports are you willing to give up in
> >the first cut for fast? The TIL suggestion, amongst others, has the
> >potential to speed things up rather a lot, but it has the disadvantage of
> >requiring intimate knowledge of each target port.
>
>We should be able to code a TIL kernel in C which would
>compile to sane code on any RISC machine.
>(We have one in Pascal round here some place...)
Something like the B::C backend? (Or is it B::CC? I don't recall)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Tim Bunce
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Larry Wall
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Ken Fox
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Nick Ing-Simmons
- Dan Sugalski
