ons 2010-03-31 klockan 05:35 -0700 skrev quanstro: > i believe you mean a limbo toolchain. inferno is an operating system.
By "Inferno toolchain" I mean "toolchain for Inferno" (as in "Linux toolchain"). At least Google shows that such expressions are used by general public. > this project is too big. It can be shrinked if necessary, but I wouldn't say it's that big. JVM backend for LLVM was developed less than in 3 months, part-time. And this includes runtime library. > also, i think there are a few large bits missing from this plan, > including support for plan 9/inferno a.out format. At this stage I plan to support Dis bytecode only. There will be no support for compiling native Plan 9 binaries or Inferno kernel itself. Can you elaborate a bit more on what I'm missing? > two weeks seems insufficient for porting the c library. As the primary goal is to make some of Plan 9 userland run of Inferno without source code changes, I can start with a subset of the library. This schedule is preliminary, of course, but newlib was ported to JVM in comparable timeframe, and 9libc is more compact. > how do you plan on binding read(2) into sys->read(2) Is this question about how do I intend to wrap syscalls in general or is it specific about read(2)? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Plan 9 Google Summer of Code" 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/plan9-gsoc?hl=en.
