>>> That's also a myth. For example, if C is easy to maintain, why is >>> Flaming Thunder the only single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross compiler in >>> the world? There should be lots of single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross >>> compilers written in C, if C is easier to maintain. >>Not only is it the world's only "single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross >>compiler," but according to google, it's also the world's only "shotgun >>cross compiler" period. But I guess if you make up your own terminology >>you're bound to be unique. :) Do you mind if I ask: what exactly is a >>single-asset 8x8 shotgun cross compiler, and what makes that of any >>value to me? > > The web page explains. It's a compiler that runs on 8 platforms and can > generate executables for any of them on any of them. It's not _totally_ > clear about what "single-asset" means, but it gives the impression (and > the term somewhat suggests) that this means there's a single executable > that does all of this (compare to gcc's design, where support for cross > compiling to another arch is provided by a separate executable).
Which isn't too hard if all you have are simple datatypes as a handfull numerical types + strings. Besides, from what I see, the supported platforms all are x86, 32bit & 64bit. And I bet GCC works pretty unmodified amongst these as well - only binary formats differ. But let Flaming Thunder grow a library system with dynamic loading, and I wonder how well his crosscompiler works.. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list