At 01:10 PM 12/31/00 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > but you seem to agree that porting to most embedded type systems is more > > of an OS (and testing!) issue than compilation. if other complex enough > >I think there are true limits imposed by the more limited CPUs like >address space. I think there might be nasty assumptions one easily >makes that work only on 32-bit or more address spaces. Any assumptions spring to mind, besides "we can eat lots of memory"? Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Uri Guttman
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Uri Guttman
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Uri Guttman
- Re: standard representations Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: standard representations Uri Guttman
- Re: standard representations Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: standard representations Uri Guttman
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: standard representations Nicholas Clark
- Re: standard representations Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: standard representations Uri Guttman
- Re: cross-compiling Jeff Okamoto
- Re: cross-compiling Andy Dougherty
- Re: standard representations Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: standard representations Tom Hughes